Talk:Red pill and blue pill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Band[edit]

Red Pill are an Edinburgh based Progressive Death Metal band.

http://www.metal-archives.com/band/view/id/3540323159

First political use?[edit]

The article currently states that "[i]n 2007 the neoreactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin used the terms red pill and blue pill to describe certain doctrines regarding democracy, marking the first use of the terms in a political context." The source cited for this is the blog post in which Yarvin used those terms, which establishes that he used them as stated but not that he was the first to do so. Is there a reliable source that states that he was the first to use "red pill" in reference to a political doctrine? - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that "Yarvin was the first to popularize the analogy from The Matrix of being “redpilled” or “-pilled,” suddenly losing your illusions and seeing the supposed reality of the world more clearly, as applied to politics." This could be a reliable source, assuming it's not just WP:CITOGENESIS with the author copying from earlier versions of this wiki article. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too have read the Vox article on Yarvin and I cannot find anything to contradict this claim that Yarvin was the first to popularize the "red pill" in political discussion. Given the red pill is a very popular concept in political discussions, especially on the internet, I think it is absolutely worth including this information in the article. I cannot see anyone disputing this in the talk section either. However, when this information was added to the article it was removed under the grounds that it is from a blog. It's not clear to me why being from a blog should be disqualifying, provided the usage was authentic and relevant. Other uses listed include Tweets, which seem no better than a blog. Could someone of the opposing opion please provide some sort of justification here? Otherwise I will be adding it back.Scamperton (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Popularizing' isn't really a notable claim and does not equate to being the first use. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the fact that I do think popularizing something is notable, and I would be happy to argue this point, here is another source from Tablet Magazine[1]. It writes "In one of his earliest blog posts, Yarvin birthed the now-ubiquitous meme of “the red pill,” a metaphor he borrowed from The Matrix movies and turned into a worldwide catchphrase describing the revelation of a suppressed truth that shatters progressive illusions and exposes a harsh underlying reality."
I would say the term "birthed" is stronger than popularize and does imply being first. Unless you have further objections, I will restore the content and include this Tablet Magazine source as well. Scamperton (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And This Atlantic article, for example, claims it was popularized in 2013 by redditors. It cannot have been a 'worldwide meme' (indeed, it obviously was not) in 2007 and then only became 'popularized' years later. I continue to object. This content does not belong in the article. And you can assume that I continue to object until I actually say otherwise - I don't have to renew my objection everytime you make a comment. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three problems with this:
First, the Yarvin post is from 2007, six years before the Atlantic article claims Reddit popularized it. Both cannot be true and I am inclinded to side with the origin claim with is both verifiable and earlier. Additionally, The Atlantic piece is from 2021, while the Vox piece is from 2022. I am also inclinced to side with the more recent of the two articles.
Secondly, I can find sources in addition to Vox claiming that Yarvin first popularized it including this.[2]
Thirdly, you stated yourself that being first is what is notable, not populariztion. By your own standard then, Yarvin is the notable use, since unless you object to the Tablet piece he not only popularized it but birthed it.
Lastly, if you still have an issue with the fact that it is froma blog, could you explain that. Otherwise I will consider the blog aspect a non-issue. Scamperton (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to side with the idea Yarvin wrote it in 2007 and nobody paid attention because it was an obscure blog post, not worth mentioning. At no point did I say that being first would be notable. The Matrix was obviously the first. Appropriating a metaphor and applying it in different contexts is routine, not groundbreaking. And we don't have good sources for that anyway. (Tablet is mostly notable for publishing inflammatory nonsense) MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Yarvin wrote it in 2007 and nobody paid attention because it was an obscure blog post, not worth mentioning" Then your characterization of events is in direct conflict with three sources I have cited. Why should I believe you over them?
Your characterization of Yarvin as obscure is also in conflict with his Wikipedia page which includes "Yarvin's ideas have been influential among right-libertarians and paleolibertarians, and the public discourses of prominent investors like Peter Thiel have echoed Yarvin's project of seceding from the US to establish tech-CEO dictatorships. Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work."
As to your point that applying the concept of the red pill, originated in the Matrix, to other topics is not notable, I will draw your attenention to the fact that five out of seven bullets in the uses section are exactly that. Should we remove them too?
Finally, you claim that we don't have any reliable sources. I draw your attention to Wikipedia's reliable sources page which lists Vox, the original source, as reliable.
In otherwords, your view of the facts is in contradiction with a reliable source and your view on what is notable is in contradiction with existing inclusions in the article. Scamperton (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since being first is so important to you, what do you think of this paper by Tierney? Note the date. MrOllie (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If memory and record serves, you are the one who claimed being first is important. I claimed it was popularization that was important. If someone made a post that had little influence I would not consider that notable, even if they were first, or perhaps I would consider it notable simply for being first. At any rate, I cannot find a reliable source claiming that Tierney popularized it. Perhaps you can.
Regardless, that was not my original claim. My original claim was that it should be included because it popularized the red pill in political discussion. As I stated, I am happy to argue that popularization is notable. Scamperton (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I never claimed that. Also, nice shift of the goal post, there. At any rate, we have conflicting sources, several of which have clear factual errors. The only sensible solution is to leave it out. Anything else would mislead the readership. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Popularizing' isn't really a notable claim and does not equate to being the first use. - I took this to mean that you considered first use the notable criteria. Even if you don't that's not my point. My point is that popularization is what is notable.
I don't believe our sorces are conflicting. I point you again to the Atlantic article you cited claiming Reddit first popularized the red pill in the political context in 2013. Go to this article again. Read the line: "red pill, usually written as redpill, sprouted on Reddit. It was first popularized in 2013 in a Reddit forum called The Red Pill"
Notice that there is a link on the words "sprouted on Reddit". No doubt, this is their source for the claim that Reddit popularized it. Click on that link. This takes you to an article "Reactionary Wokeness: How Redpilling Became a Thing on Reddit." Control F and search for "Yarvin". You will encounter the following line:
"Curtis Yarvin AKA Mencius Moldbug, the neo-reactionary political theorist who is actually credited as having popularized redpilling in the first place (Sandifer 2018)"
In otherwords, the source you use to dispute my claim, actually upon further inspection supports my claim. Scamperton (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying to my own post here, but I think there is some additional information worth adding.
I read the Atlantic article more thuroughly and it seems to me that it is not actually claiming that Reddit popularized the red pill.
"It was first popularized in 2013 in a Reddit forum called The Red Pill, which is for men who aspire to seduce women using complicated manipulation; the term meant deliberately opening your eyes to the oppression of modern men. Then it made a run through almost every major reactionary space on Reddit"
I think what this actually means is that the Red Pill subreddit popularized it on Reddit from which it spread to other subreddits. This is not a claim that the subreddit popularized the term itself. This explains the disconnect between the Atlantic article and the research the Atlantic article is based on which itself claims that Yarvin first popularized the term. Scamperton (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the whole article, that is obviously not what is meant. MrOllie (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, care to elaborate? Also please address the fact the the research this article is citing itself supports the claim Yarvin first popularized it. Scamperton (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the Atlantic article details its spread from Reddit to the rest of the internet (and then offline). That makes no logical sense if you take the position that the term was already widespread in 2007. MrOllie (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the fact the the research the article is citing supports my claim Scamperton (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the Atlantic linked to a post elsewhere is immaterial, they didn't use the claim in their own article - either they ignored it or they disagreed with it, either of which are telling. MrOllie (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the line in the Atlantic you are basing your argument on links to this research, how can you in good faith call this immaterial?
Secondly, it is logicial to interpret what the Atlantic wrote as claiming that r/theredpill popularized the meme on reddit, but did not popularize the term itself. At best the paragraph sentence is unclear.
Thirdly, you're argument that because Reddit spread the term that means Yarvin didn't popularize it in 2007 makes no sense unless you accept a binary notion of popularization. Something can be first popularized and then further spread. Rick Riordan introduced many young people to Greek mythology, but he by no means first popularized it.
Finanlly, the fact that they don't mention Yarvin in the article is not telling. The article is about how the meme has been evolving in recent years. It does not present itself as a detailed history of the meme. Scamperton (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that Yarvin popularized it in 2007, but also that people hadn't heard of it (that is, it wasn't popular) on reddit until 2013, and people in general hadn't heard of it until (in the Atlantic's words) the red pill exploded in popularity in the runup to the 2016 election. Is that right? MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No you are putting words in my mouth. You might as well claim I said that no one had heard of Greek mythology untill Rick Riordan came along, which would be clearly false.
Again, your are presisting in this binary notion of popularization. Scamperton (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am persisting in the notion that Yarvin's blog post is too obscure as to be worth mention. MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To recap the sources, and mention a couple more, we have:
- This Vox Article claiming Yarvin "first popularized" it in the political context
- This UMich Journal Article Claiming Yarvin "coined the meme". I would also point out this source discusses your Atlantic article as well, so they must not have seen a contradiction.
- This Tablet article claiming Yarvin "birthed" the meme
- This Journal Article claiming Yarvin "first popularized" it in the right wing realm
- This Politico Article claiming Yarvin "deployed it influentially"
- This Atlantic article which claims the meme "sprouted on Reddit" and r/theredpill "first popularized it". However this wording can also be interpreted to mean r/theredpill popularized it within Reddit. When we click in the underlying research linked to the words "sprouted on Reddit" we are taken to the next source.
- This research by Open Intelligence Lab which includes the lines "the space within which it was supposedly first popularised: Reddit" and "Curtis Yarvin AKA Mencius Moldbug, the neo-reactionary political theorist who is actually credited as having popularized redpilling in the first place". In otherwords, it makes clear Yarvin, not Reddit, first popularized it.
- Yarvin's Wikipedia article which cites him as influential
Yet in spite of all this, you persit in the notion that Yarvin is "to obscure as to be worth mention." I cannot describe your view as anything but divorced from the view of the reliable sources.
Therefore I am going to be including this content. Scamperton (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting sources with clear factual errors (in light of the Tierney paper) are not adequate support to put this content in the article. It will mislead the readers. The WP:ONUS is on you to get a consensus in favor of including disputed content. Edit warring it in over my objection is not the way to do that. MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have repeated many times, first popularizing the term in the political context is what I am concerned about. The fact that Tierney has an earlier usage does not refute this.
Please at least concede that your characterization of Yarvin's usage as "too obscure" is not inline with the view of numerous sources. Scamperton (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. The plain reading of several of these sources, particularly the Atlantic, is perfectly in line with my view. I cannot concur with this interpretation that the source doesn't mean what the words plainly say. MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why you think the research the Atalntic article links to when making this claim is "immaterial" Scamperton (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you've forgotten what I said earlier, please scroll up a bit and re-read. Repeating ourselves is not productive. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is why it is material: It is the research they are cited to make the claim. Scamperton (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a blog post they happened to link. If they don't repeat the claim they cannot be assumed to endorse it. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're obviously going around in circles here. You want to include disputed content, you've got to convince others of that. You're doing a very poor job of convincing me. It is time for WP:DR. I'll give you first crack at filing for a third opinion or a RFC or something. But if you don't want to or don't know how, I'll do it in a bit. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating one Scamperton (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't try to open a WP:DRN until after the holidays, It takes forever and has deadlines to meet. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They didn't happen to link it", they linked it on the very words making this claim, what could be more obvious. And it is not just "a blog post", it is a blog post made by a research lab. Even if we consider this immaterial, even if we accept the interpretation that the Atalantic is claiming Reddit, and not Yarvin first popularized it, they are still vastly outnumbered by the other sources I have presented. Scamperton (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/red-pill-prince-curtis-yarvin
  2. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/27020752

RfC on First Popularization in politics[edit]

Should the "Other Uses" section contain a mention that Curtis Yarvin popularized the "red pill" in the political context? Scamperton (talk) Scamperton (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes
Firstly, it is notable. The political context is one of the main contexts that the "red pill" is used, especially on the internet. It is therefore notable how this was first popularized as a political term. Secondly, it is verifiable. Below are a number of sources of varing reliablity, although some of them are explicitly classed by Wikipeida as reliable. These sources claim that Yarvin used the term infuentially and "first popularized it.
- This Vox Article claiming Yarvin "first popularized" it in the political context
- This UMich Journal Article Claiming Yarvin "coined the meme". I would also point out this source discusses the Atlantic article as well, so they must not have seen a contradiction.
- This Tablet article claiming Yarvin "birthed" the meme
- This Journal Article claiming Yarvin "first popularized" it in the right wing realm
- This Politico Article claiming Yarvin "deployed it influentially"
Additionally Yarvin's Wikipedia page describes him as influenctial.
There does exist an Atlantic article Atlantic article which claims the meme "sprouted on Reddit" and r/theredpill "first popularized it". However, if you read the article I believe this wording can also be interpreted to mean r/theredpill popularized it within Reddit. The words "sprouted on Reddit" contain a link, which is clearly their source for this claim. If you click on that it takes you to this research by Open Intelligence Lab which includes the lines "the space within which it was supposedly first popularised: Reddit" and "Curtis Yarvin AKA Mencius Moldbug, the neo-reactionary political theorist who is actually credited as having popularized redpilling in the first place". In otherwords, it makes clear Yarvin, not Reddit, first popularized it.
It is also the case that Yarvin was not the very first to use the term in a political context. We have identified at least one earlier usage: this essay written in 2006 by Kathleen Tierney applies the concept of the red pill to the politics of Katrina and 9/11. However, I cannot find any RP claiming that this usage popularized it. On the contrary I find many claiming Yarvin did. Perhaps it is worth including Tierney as well, on the sole basis that being first, even if not influential, is notable. However, that is not the question at hand, and we haven't actually established she was first. Scamperton (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is incorrect. Yarvin applied the metaphor to politics on his blog in 2007, Tierney did it in an article for the Social Science Research Council in 2006. That's the facts. As to secondary sources, they conflict. The Atlantic says it was popularized years later on Reddit. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'm convinced by Scamperton's sources that this was indeed popularized by Yarvin. Ollie's rebuttal isn't convincing to me: while Tierney used the metaphor earlier there doesn't appear to be a lot of evidence that Tierney's article was widely read, so she didn't popularize it. And while the Atlantic article does conflict, it appears to be against the balance of the sources. Loki (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. As Loki said, differentiating between first use/popularization appears to solve MrOllie's first problem. As for the second one, the Atlantic article does appear to contradict the other sources, but given there's such a large majority of sources featuring a differing viewpoint, featuring that would likely fall under undue weight. ReadItAlready (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how this is settled, let's give Tierney her due weight as the person who first used the political metaphor in a reliable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy, I am inclined to agree with you excpet as I pointed out above we have not actually established that Tierney was first. All we know is that she used it and it was earlier. Since her usage was not influential, if we mention it, it would have to be on the basis of being truely first. I'd love if you could check if there is RP to support this. But please put it in another talk section to keep this RFC on topic. Thanks Scamperton (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – That Yarvin popularized the term being red-pilled in the political sense should be included. The reliable sources provided above indicate this to be the case. However, what is more important is that the "red pill" meme in politics is metnioend with this addition, and it is explained what the conservative sphere means by this metaphor. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - and in general, the concepts of red and blue pill (and some of the other color "pills" as well) deserve more prominence in this article than just a listing in "Other uses". A section for the political metaphors would allow for more explanation of who first coined it, who popularized it, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Yellow Pill" (1958) by Rog Phillips[edit]

In the story "They Yellow Pill" by Rog Phillips (1958) a madman believes he is in a different reality but taking a yellow pill cures his delusions and makes him see the real world as it actually is. Snapdragon630 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Zygon Inversion[edit]

At the end of the Doctor Who episode the Zygon Inversion there are two boxes: a red one and a blue one. Not only that but each box has two different buttons. Pogeons (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence in Lede is Wrong[edit]

"The red pill and blue pill represent a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in the contented experience of ordinary reality with the blue pill."

NO. It means that ALL of the electronic indoctrination we are subjected to is a lie. This Lede attempts to water-down the truth of the expansive nature of this statement because the "reliable sources" used to manufacture this false definition, and false reality, are the primary focus of the term's intended meaning. It's not about, has never been about, and will never be about anything other than the totality of the "world that has been pulled over your eyes". The idea that it's a single "truth" or a "potentially unsettling" whatever is both stupid and laughable, and a bald attempt to water-down the term's intended meaning. Here's a logic exercise. If I'm wrong, than what word or term exists other than this one, to describe the idea that every. single. thing. being published today is a manufactured narrative, and a lie. That's right. That word/term doesn't exist, because THIS one does. That's the word/term we use to describe the idea that it's all, meaning ALL a lie. Stop watering down useful language and pretending it's the truth, instead of yet another one of the infinite number of variations on the entire web of lies we are immersed in. In short, stop lying and tell the truth. For once.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:1891:C5B1:D102:AB78 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_pill_and_blue_pill&oldid=1218983836"