TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ABunchofTards Archive

View 0 posts and 274 comments by ABunchofTards on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

And you're demanding that we assume that everyone is guilty deep down, and that they just happened to get away with it.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:29 AM
2

I don't think that you do. He wasn't just saying it. Nobody is ever 'just saying' anything. People have motivations for the things they say. And the motivation of people who say that is to foster the presumption that the government is away right, and even when prosecutors fail to get convictions, it's only because some rotten bastard got away with it. I am sick of that kind of bullshit logic, and will downvote these state-worshiping psychopaths whenever they voice it.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:28 AM
1

I'm sick of bullshit lawyer talk being used by statists to justify the assumption that no one is innocent, we're all just waiting to be caught.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:26 AM
1

Downvotes from partisan Democrats who don't offer a reply. Honestly, they know it's true. They just don't want you saying it, because it might hurt the Democrat's electoral process -- these people would rather silence the truth, than have their actions be judged by the electoral process. Another reason not to vote Democrat.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:25 AM
1

He's a similar hero type -- rich guy. Personality wise, in the comics they are very different. And effectiveness wise, Batman's more of a brawler with tech skills, while Arrow is more useful for tactical support and crowd control. In the show, he's Batman with arrows.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 10:08 AM
2

Not a bad touchstone, really. Those vikings could kick ass, crack jokes, have a good time with each other. They weren't the feminist version of 'well rounded', but they weren't all emotionless thugs. They were the kind of men other men like to look up to.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 10:06 AM
1

It's kind of a synergy. He did borrow heavily from Miller... but being familiar with Snyder's work, it probably would have ended up looking like this anyway.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 10:04 AM
2

The sad thing is just how well done the early Arrow fights were. Nothing else was that great at the start, but the fights were always impressive. Now, they're barely above Smallville level.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 10:02 AM
6

I think it's a quote from Agent Carter... Iron Man's dad said something very similar. Gentlemen's clubs were a place to get away from the wife back in the day. Women couldn't enter, so you could just be like, 'Oh, sorry Honey...but them's the rules. Tough break'. Now they are strip clubs.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 09:58 AM
3

If you do this, change the lettuce to Spinach or Arugula
/r/MensRights23/03/16 09:55 AM
6

The divide is usually 'Authoritarian vs. Libertarian', because 'liberal' does not classically mean 'against state power', but rather has more to do with economic policies.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 09:54 AM
4

In my experience, the 'left' always ends up following the radicals among them.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 09:52 AM
2

Not if that commercial use is itself protected by fair use or another doctrine, which is how paparazzi get away with it. They sell the picture, which they own, to a paper. The paper uses it in a story ostensibly related to the public figure, and bam, the public figure doesn't get any say in it at all.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:35 PM
1

'These people won't do what I want them to, so they are evil!'. That's the only sense that needs to be made out of this. A lot of people are no better than children, and should be laughed at or ignored.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:49 PM
1

Maybe. It's easy to forget that the oldest millennials are 34 right now, while the oldest Gen-Xers are about 52. Even if she's a boomer, she's Gen Jones, which is closer in attitude to Gen-X than to BB-prime.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:45 PM
1

An untrained woman, with her fists? Probably not, not unless she got in a lucky hit or did something else that made me think of as a threat. But I wouldn't just another person for making a different choice, either. I would never hit someone without expecting to get hit back in return. So I have no sympathy for someone who hits other people without understanding that. Hitting someone else is an admission that you think violence is an acceptable way to solve problems. So you can't complain when so…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:42 PM
15

most of those women are also presumably in a relationship with a man now? I am not willing to presume this. A lot of them are women who haven't been able to keep a man for longer than a week since they were 25, and who somehow blame all of the men for it.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:33 PM
17

Feminism is how neoliberal shitbags look genuinely liberal to their party's base.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:31 PM
2

I'd call the existence of separate X and Y Chromosomes fairly strong evidence that gender is genetic. The more accurate way to portray the divide is, some people think that gender/divide is real, and those who think it isn't. I'm okay with people separating gender and sex to analyze them separately in social science. but to act like they can be 'different' on a biological level strikes me as psuedoscience.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:27 PM
28

No, because we're sick of crazies brainwashing our children with unscientific garbage. Disagreeing with you is not 'transphobia'. Some people hate you. Very few people fear you. And most of the opposition against you is due to the fact that you wage political crusades against science, making you no better than creationists or climate change deniers.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:53 AM
8

Bullshit. This judge has a long fucking history of ignoring the actual law in order to let women accused of sexual or other misconduct go free and keep their jobs. She never does this for men. She never cares. She only does it for women, and looks for any excuse at all, no matter how unlikely it is to survive appeal, to overrule misconduct charges against them. It's what she's known for.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:51 AM
1

In this specific case, it's more to do with why eye witness testimony is useless if the witness has undergone any trauma. She was raped. She falsely identified a man from one of her dreams as her rapist, because that's the kind of crazy shit traumatized people do. From a scientific standpoint, eye-witness testimony should not be used unless it is corroborated by independent evidence. It's flat-out wrong too often, and jury's give it far, far, far more weight than it deserves, because people 'kno…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/16 11:40 AM
10

He is doing his job. But this is not 'responsibility'. It is not responsible to cover up false accusations. It's Reddit's SJW bullshit, where every accusation can be shouted from the rooftops, but anything that contradicts said accusation has to be buried and made impossible to find. It's the feminists version of, 'You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride'. Edit: if it were anything else, it would be reposted with the names blanked out. It has not been, because they not only want to pre…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/16 11:35 AM
1

In all fairness, the actual article points out that this is about class issues mostly, and the perception that HRC only cares about minorities and women. It's almost as if screaming, 'War on Women!' as your only campaign slogan during the greatest economic downturn of the last four generations has given whites and men the impression that the Democratic party doesn't care about them...
/r/MensRights20/03/16 09:03 AM
2

Feminism and Neoliberism go hand in hand. Feminism is a tool of the neoliberal. Feminism is neoliberalisms beard -- the only 'progressive' movement that will not hurt their bottom line, so they force it down everyone's throats to prove how progressive they are. You're not smarter than I am. You have not observed anything that I have not observed -- indeed, you observe the same things, but somehow get them all wrong. You aren't wrong about the neoliberals. You're just wrong about the innocence of…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 09:00 AM
1

If it makes you feel better, the Democrats always blame the voters for not voting for them. They never blame themselves for being such shit to begin with. I spent most of my youth as a Democrat. Believe me, these people are nastier to their own than they will ever be to the other.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:58 AM
2

I support Trump at this point. I will always stand with the candidate who stands against 'free' trade. A lot of people who usually sit things out will show up if they think they have an honest attempt to vote against free trade. Make no mistake about that -- we have not had that opportunity at all in this country, not once on a presidential level, despite our opinion representing the overwhelming majority of this country. A lot of people will grow over broken glass to vote against Free Trade. Ge…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:51 AM
1

She would have a hard time in a neutral election. Given 10 years of economic malaise and an unpopular sitting President (cut the downvotes and google his approval rating; most of the country is not reddit), I don't think she has much of a chance even before you get to specific scandals.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:49 AM
1

Sure, if you group all of the women with all of the minorities, you get a majority. but HRC won't win all of the women. She will win more or less the exact same share of women any other Democratic candidate will win -- 60%. And minorities don't make up that big a percentage of voters, not even as high a percentage as they make up in the population, because of lot of that population is here illegally.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:47 AM
1

I think you're mostly right, but this is the result of having no credibility. Most people aren't going to read an article with a title like that from a man-bashing organ like the NYT. That article was more or less honest about the reasons why white men don't want to vote for Clinton. But it's source and it's title mean it's likely not to get read.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:39 AM
1

Outside of reddit, most people disagree with you.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:36 AM
1

Every time I see someone I more or less agree with getting downvoted, I go back and downvote everyone they were arguing with.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:35 AM
1

People always said 'It's only TEDX!'. But it was inevitable that this shit would make it back to the main product. It always does.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:34 AM
1

Soros' money is doing its work, clearly.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:33 AM
6

/r/nottheonion is run by SJWs.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 08:32 AM
4

Make no mistake, when feminists talk of 'trafficked' women, they mean women who are in prostitution for the money, not women who are being forced into it. Feminists are massively dishonest people.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 08:02 AM
3

Nothing serves as greater proof of feminist hypocrisy and hatred of men than this story.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 08:00 AM
3

There are videos of it... They're chanting Bernie's name... I would link, but given how widespread they are and that you're still pretending they don't exist, I don't see the point. You're obviously just a lying piece of shit. I don't know how else to interpret this. Any proof given will just be ignored.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:54 AM
9

I won't vote for HRC no matter what. I will vote for anyone over HRC, anyone at all. She hates men. She insults men. She only cares about women. I will crawl naked over broken glass to vote for whoever runs against her. And the only people who have acted with violence on a consistent basis during this election is the left. so cut the crap.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:52 AM
2

The widespread injection of feminism into liberal causes has served no purpose but to push a large portion of people away from both liberalism and feminism. left-wing rags are more propaganda filled than the right-wing ones these days.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:50 AM
8

Democrats hate men. Maybe Republicans hate mexicans or whatever, but Democrats definitely hate men. I will not vote for the party that hates people like me. It isn't going to happen. no matter how much you DNC types try to muddy the water, it will never happen. HRC is not a legitimate candidate in a lot of people's eyes, and if you didn't want to have losing this election as a likely possibility, you should have found someone else.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:34 AM
3

Her corrupt indifference predictably led to the death of another person. We've charged people for less.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:29 AM
1

This is just madness. What the fuck is going on in this woman's head right now? Is she just butthurt about something, and wants to jab a finger in the eyes of all men? Given her level of success, it's hard to justify the massive chip on her shoulder.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:27 AM
151

In all fairness, it is extremely unlikely that this decision will stand. It blatantly violates the spirit of the law, and seems to rely on the argument of, 'Well, if I actually follow the law, stuff will happen that I don't like, so I've decided not to do that', which it is very unlikely that a higher, more conservative court will accept.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:54 AM
25

Obama likes to appoint activist judges. The right is not wrong about that, and they were not wrong to block as many of his appointees as they could, who make even George W Bushes nominees look impartial. Bush's judges regularly ruled against him. I can't think of more than a few cases in which Obama's judges have ruled against him.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:53 AM
2

And if he had said this twenty years ago, someone might have noticed.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 12:20 PM
2

It's pretty obviously true. All of this is happening because Barack Obama decided that title IX said something it clearly didn't say. And now his corrupt appointees are giving it the thumbs up, and letting men suffer because of it. Meanwhile, his party does nothing but fight an imaginary 'War on Women!' while letting the economy rot and men go jobless. NEVER vote Democrat. They hate men and worship women. And no matter how much you may think you agree with them, they still hate you, and will rea…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:39 AM
1

I will never vote for a Democrat again after the way Obama has handled Title IX issues. That's the women-only party. Nobody else matters to them.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:37 AM
1

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. This judge decided to simply ignore the law, because he imagined potential consequences to following the law he doesn't like. This is what judicial activism looks like -- a liberal judge deciding to ignore the law because it might make women feel bad.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:37 AM
2

That's exactly what the judge is doing here. "I don't want to uphold the law because I think there might be negative consequences" is not a valid legal argument. It's wankering, that some in here are defending because they will defend any amount of wankery from these black-robed psychopathers. These are the same kind of people who think Bush V. Gore was well decided, and that Kelo was necessary and totally misunderstood decision.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:36 AM
1

Yeah, it's indefensible. But lawyers will defend it, because there isn't a single lawyer in this country who isn't willing to defend corrupt pieces of shit like this one. They are more interested in defending a corrupt system, than they are in justice.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:34 AM
1

This is how judges get away with corruption. They pretend to rule on one issue as an excuse to do whatever they want. They regularly look for excuses to dismiss valid cases they don't like. They regularly allow invalid cases they do like to go forward. It's pretty obvious that the western model of impunity for judges flat-out doesn't work. The only people who defend it are lawyers and judges, not because they have special knowledge the rest of us don't have, but simply because they want to prese…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:33 AM
1

The only good judge is a dead judge. If they don't want to uphold the law, then they should swing from trees.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 05:31 AM
19

Feminists do not know how to be professional. They don't know how to be decent. They only know how to antagonize. They pick fights with everyone around them, and then scream about sexism to explain why they have so many enemies.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:40 PM
5

I admit, I don't take any complaints about 'respecting women' seriously entirely because I've been hearing this garbage pour out of women's mouths my entire life. Women need to be told to shut the fuck up with their toxic bullshit. Do they want to hear men running their mouths about what shit women are all day? Fuck now. They would riot over that. But they think it's their right to shit on an entire gender day in, day out. Fuck them, those childish pieces of shit.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:33 PM
2

That's a cheap debate technique. He's not criticizing someone's service. He's criticizing an organization that's okay with child rape. Honestly, why the fuck would you want to join the Army if this is the kind of shit you have to put up with? Would you sign up to work on the Death star? I'm sorry, but the moment 'putting up child rape' is part of your Soldier's job description, you've become the bad guy.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 12:55 PM
32

Never. Get. Married. You don't think your chick is like this? She probably isn't. But this guy didn't think his chick was like this, either. Nobody does. We are all fools to love, so be aware of that. The wisest and smartest among us can be tricked when someone with the right kind of pheromones walks by.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/03/16 03:52 PM
1

Family Court is stocked full of judges who can't make it anywhere else, or man-hating Democratic appointees.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:50 PM
2

You got downvoted, because this tard wants what he says to be true (he is clearly a libertarian ideologue) but you're right. If you have the resources to push on it, the school will either lose terribly and have it's name drug through the mud (which they may do for insurance purposes, until they realize that the cost of bad publicity to their endowment is worse than raises insurance rates). I think that in few years, several of these schools and quite possibly the DOJ (the schools are doing this…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:49 PM
2

Again, that's not how any of this works. You don't know your rights at all. Your original statement made the claim that as a private entity, GMU can do whatever they want and kick people out for whatever reason, but that's not how the law works. You are a party of a contract, and have all rights delineated within that contract or that you are ruled to have by the federal court system.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:44 PM
4

The university has their own set of rules and policies. Regardless of how arbitrary or inappropriate they are, if you break them, you can be punished. This is just not actually true. You sign a contract when you go to school at a university. The University must uphold the terms of that contract or be found in breech (that is how most of these legal victories happen), and the relevant terms must be valid (constitutional, specific enough to be enforceable and cannot in any way be deemed to shock t…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:43 PM
1

Why? The feminists have decided to cut funding if they don't do this. Why should, say, a President Trump cut their funding if they do this? I guarantee that if he does that, these schools will fight the next time a Dear Colleague-like policy is put in place, and precedent stands regardless of why they sued. So if they sue Trump over a decision to cut their funding over holding these tribunals, it will mean that the government does not have standing to withhold funding funding for not holding the…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:39 PM
3

Why is this sub so large, if it's not happening? Be realistic here. Feminists didn't start talking about MRAs to use us as bogeymen. They started talking about us because we couldn't be ignored anymore.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 07:02 AM
1

I don't disagree, but right now there is no separating feminism from liberalism. If it's a parasitic relationship, it's clear that your average Democrat and/or leftist loves feminism the way a mother loves it's child.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 07:01 AM
2

Again, throughout history the notion of 'Democracy' always meant 'Republicanism', because direct Democracy was patently absurd in the days when most people never left a 20-mile radius from the place they were born. This distinction is an invented one. It makes sense in relatively modern times when direct democracy is workable, but it is not ever used when discussing historical notions of Democracy. Because again, direct Democracy wasn't even a consideration beyond the city-state level. It couldn…
/r/MensRights01/03/16 07:00 AM
2

The distinction between Democracies and Republics is an extremely new one, invented partially because some enlightenment figures misunderstood the concept of Democracy the way Montesquieu misunderstood the branches of government, and partially because an authoritarian strain of both conservatism and liberalism finds this invented distinction to be helpful. Historically, all talk of 'Democracy' was talk of building a Republic, because until recently direct Democracy simply wasn't workable.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:56 AM
3

I am not interested in living in whatever bizarre dystopia you're going on about at this point. I have no more interest in seeing females reduced to breeding stock or 'controlled' through social engineering than I do in seeing this current system, so... Yeah. I want what will make everyone the happiest, even if it is a little constricting for some people around the fringes. I would likely be one of those people, but as fun as this 'do whatever the fuck you want' society has been, it clearly just…
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:53 AM
5

No, it wasn't. People were flat-out happier back then. This isn't conjecture, this is statistical fact. This has long been a vexing problem for progressives, though they (typically) only care about how it affects women and call it the Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, even though it's true across almost all of society. People were happier under the traditional system. It was traditional for all of human history of a reason. And yet one generation -- the shittiest generation in all of human …
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:50 AM
1

This is how I see things, and I why I refuse to vote Democratic no matter how many of the issues they ostensibly agree with me on. They hate men. For Democrats to succeed with their current strategy, they have to cripple men and teach women that men are pathetic and unreliable, or those women will not be as reliant on the state. Voting for that will end horrible for men. I don't care what 'progress' we see in the interim, it will only end with men hobbled and crippled and unable to seek happines…
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:44 AM
1

If this happened to my kid and wasn't being taken seriously, I'd put a bullet in these other kid's heads, and maybe into their parents for good measure. If you don't like that kind of shit, punish people who do wrong. If not, expect their love ones to do the punishing for you. I'd rather not live in that world, but I'd rather live in a world where me and mine get fucked over even less.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:22 AM
1

I'm not saying that Trump isn't an asshole. But it's him or HRC, and I'm not voting for someone explicitly running as a man-hating feminist.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:04 AM
1

Obviously I'm not saying 100% of all men, or even the majority follow that pattern. Why is it obvious when you do it, but not when he does it? It seems like you're asking for slack you are unwilling to give others. You demand that we judge you by your intentions, but you refuse to acknowledge that someone else's words may not have been completely representative of their intent.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:00 AM
-1

No, he was half right, but the other way. It's not 'mature' people who don't care, it's successful people who have enough money not to care. Being freed from economic restraints is not 'maturity'. People who make less money than you are not less mature than you are. They are less successful, probably (though the same level of success in different fields will yield different rewards). What we're seeing is the devastation that neoliberal economcis has wreaked on our culture. Too little money gets …
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:59 AM
3

The 'self awareness' bit is you admitting that you broke the rules... the 'so far away' bit is you somehow not understanding that you've broken the rules. You. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Vote. On. Links. To. Other. Subs. You act like he's paranoid for accusing you of rule-breaking... in the same post in which you admit to rulebreaking.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:56 AM
7

So you're flat-out admitting that you broke reddit's rules? You aren't allowed to comment or vote on submissions you've followed from other subs or websites. That's called brigading, and it's against Reddit's rules.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:54 AM
2

Mods often lie about their motivations. Anyone who has spent time on /r/undelete knows that. That, and they organize off-site IRC voting brigades to keep criticism of them at a minimum.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:51 AM
6

Typical for a Democrat institution: only help women, then insult men when they criticize them for it. There is a reason why men do not vote Democratic. They get as small a portion of the male vote, as Republicans get of the female vote. Sometimes much, much worse.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:06 AM
-2

This sub is largely a 'fake' men's rights sub, tbh. The people here care far, far, far more about making sure that no liberal government (such as the one in Canada) is ever criticized, than they do about men's rights. There's a reason this sub has 120k subscribers, but is rarely mentioned on any other men's rights site and seems to have no impact on the broader movement. It's not even worth getting worked up the laughably low level of priority they place on men's issues (you see that here, where…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:04 AM
1

So... it's your position that while she can do whatever she wants, we aren't allowed to criticize her for it (and thus can't do whatever we want)? That doesn't seem like a valid argument to make, and it is clearly one that is implied by your statement because your statement literally only contains the 'she's allowed to do whatever she wants!' argument, while implying that it is somehow 'wrong' for us to criticize what she wants to do. I don't understand people like you. Are you dishonestly troll…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 07:59 AM
0

It's not so much a need, it's more of a side effect. I have no doubt that a lower amount of testosterone means fewer female violent offenders. But there are no doubt a ton of female criminals who should be in prison, but who aren't in prison. And as the justice system starts taking them seriously, the portion of the female prison population is of course going to rise.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 08:28 AM
2

She had a documented history of working for CIA front companies before starting NOW. The rumors have always been that she was a CIA plant who was either out to make the left eat itself, or she got caught up in it and lost her original purpose, but never lost the CIA nastiness. Note, these aren't crazy conspiracy theories. That she was a suspected CIA plant is documented enough to be on her Wikipedia page.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 08:20 AM
3

You've never actually met an art major, have you? They aren't all bad people, but they aren't all 'serve and nurture'. Those people go into mental health, nursing, the med track, etc. Arts people most often have their heads up their asses. They tend to be as self involved as business students.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 08:16 AM
4

It's amazing that the same people who think that too few female programmers means that video games are brainwashing our kids, but too few male teachers or social workers are somehow no problem whatsoever.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 08:14 AM
0

Lmao, Oculus will barely turn a profit. It's hyped on reddit, but it's pricepoint puts it out of range for most people, and it's simply not expensive or 'cool' enough to make it a conversation piece among the wealthy. At most, it's a stepping stone to a more viable and mass marketable technology. At worst, it's another Virtua Boy -- a hyped flop that will set public acceptance of the field back ten years.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 09:15 AM
3

Twitter is, at this point, a feminist body. It makes feminist decisions, based entirely on feminism.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 08:39 AM
28

None of the other reddit subs will touch this... it's 'KESHA IS RIGHT OR YOU GET BENNED!' everywhere else. And I'm sure reddit will be shocked -- shocked -- when enough people vote to take a stand against this PC nonsense and elect Trump next year. They will somehow be completely and utterly unable to fathom it.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 08:38 AM
13

They mod was banning people just for questioning the accusations and pointing out that they took place in the middle of a contract dispute.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:40 AM
13

Even then, I won't buy it. She needs evidence at this point. Filing a police report now will just look like a movie to bolster her position in a contract dispute.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:36 AM
6

Why would they, though? I mean, you're basically arguing that women never have to follow the terms of their contract.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:35 AM
26

She claims abuse, had never claimed it before she wanted to get out of her contract, so the judge told her to fuck off with her bullshit until she has actual evidence to present.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:34 AM
1

This will be removed from every site. /r/Music's heads will explode.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:34 AM
1

Indeed, physical evidence matters, the amount of claims doesn't. Mattress girl managed to get people to make more false accusations. She still turned out to be a fraud.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 02:27 PM
1

Now please note that Luke could have sexual harassed or raped Kesha. Why? What do you want us to do with this note? I am uncomfortable with anyone suggesting that we need to 'keep these allegations in mind', because that sounds like you want to keep a cloud of suspicion over someone's head with no proof they've done anything wrong at all.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 02:26 PM
2

She'll plead, probably. If it's the first offense, even a conviction won't garner much punishment, not at that age. Some community service and few sessions with a therapist, most likely.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 02:00 PM
1

A few mandated therapy sessions might not hurt, figure out if she needs some kind of help or if she represents a burgeoning threat to society. That's what they'd do if she was a boy.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 01:59 PM
3

Oh, I get it. You're a bully. You want permission to beat the shit out of people you don't like. I have no interest in your fascistic adolescent revenge fantasies. Whatever you've suffered, I would suggest that you get the fuck over it, because it is clearly turning you into a son of a bitch.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 01:53 PM
3

No, you're just running your mouth about nonsense, trying to blame the victim of an assault because you get off on the idea of little girls beating up on little boys. You admit you don't know shit.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 01:51 PM
7

You do realize that you aren't allowed to hit people for saying mean things about you on the internet? You make your point with words, not fists, or you deserve to see the inside of a courtyard. The only 'point' she made, was 'I don't have to follow the rules like anyone else, and nobody is allowed to disagree with me on the internet!'. And the point society is making is, 'No, you are not special. Sit the fuck back down you little twerp'.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 01:50 PM
1

I care more about government spying, tbh.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 08:16 AM
2

Politics aside, it can only help this case if Obama (or another Democrat) gets to make the appointment. I don't buy it. I think it entirely likely that Kagan, Sotomayor and whatever other woman Obama picks (and he will pick a woman, because he only picks women in order to pander) won't just decide to 'forget' all those years of feminism and equality, and rule that the draft can't apply to women for whatever nebulous reason they decide. I don't trust Democrats. I really don't trust Obama's nomine…
/r/MensRights20/02/16 08:16 AM
12

All affirmative action does is give rich white women and the kids of Will Smith a leg up over actual poor people -- white and black. So I can't be for that. I can't be for something that would help Opera's kids enter the oligarchy, but would still leave mine fucked over. That's not going to happen. I don't give a shit about historical oppression. I care about some rich black person's kids getting an advantage they don't even kind of deserve, while my poor white kids don't get any extra advantage…
/r/MensRights20/02/16 08:08 AM
-1

Why does reddit apparently think that Poe's Law is 'It's always a troll'. That's not what Poes law says at all, and yet everything reddit writes about it makes it very clear that they believe it does. That's not even the implication. The implication is that pretending to be crazy just makes you look crazy. It is most definitely not 'We should assume all crazy people are just kidding', because that will get you into trouble.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:32 PM
1

This is bigoted. It also has nothing at all to do with Men's Rights. This is a women's issue, and you're just trying to dress it up as a Men's Rights issue. I'm not going to waste any more energy on women's issues than women waste on mine.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:30 PM
1

I know. And it's been up a whole day, so you know that the moderators have seen it and just don't give a shit. This is why a lot of MRAs don't trust the left. This is the kind of thing their magazines are full of, and the people who run those places clearly see nothing wrong with this kind of thinking.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:28 PM
1

Holy fuck, that top comment. I feel dirty just having visited that shithole. Mother Jones, huh? I guess I know not to listen to anything they have to say about anything, ever.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:28 PM
3

Feminists like to pretend that all of these issues were being debated, but then the mean nasty MRAs came in and started pissing everywhere, and now we can't have any debates out of fear of encouraging them! Feminists are liars. I won't listen to anyone who believes otherwise. Would you listen to someone you believe to be a fool about anything?
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:39 PM
-2

Honestly, letting women in the military is a horrible idea. They make inferior soldiers for obvious reasons, and even in support roles, the amount of love triangles and gender strife will severely degrade unit cohesion. You're not likely to have your buddy's back if you have to listen to him fucking the girl you like every few nights or so. It's simply unrealistic to expect people not to be people. You can shake your fist at the heavens and damn humans for being the flawed monkeys that they are …
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:33 PM
5

There can't realistically be a WWIII. No country without nuclear weapons can stand against one with nuclear weapons. No country with even the most primitive nuclear weapons can be invaded -- even the weakest nuke can vaporize an entire army or a fleet of ships without having to be very accurate at all. People talking about WWIII are clowns. We can have nuclear annihilation. We can have small-scale conflicts. The kind of global conflicts that wracked this world from the 19th to mid 20th centuries…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:28 PM
4

That is just blaming victims for their abuse. Crazy doesn't come out and announce itself in ways the untrained individual can discern. It takes time and exposure for even mental health professionals to make a qualified diagnosis. It's simply not viable to expect average people of average intelligence to be able to determine this after a few short meetings.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:24 PM
-3

But you have no problem with all of the other people just assuming that her story, which makes no sense to anyone who understands sleep or the human body, must be completely true, and can only be interpreted in one way. I agree that he is likely wrong. The most likely scenario is that she got mad, lashed out, and then lied to cover her ass. That is the simplest explanation. It is the explanation most in keeping with human behavior. It does not require any undiagnosed health issues, as it wouldn'…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:22 PM
-2

Someone here explain to me how a healthy individual hits someone while emerging from a dream state? You might manage a half-assed motion toward someone, but an actual punch is not going to happen. Unless she has a documented history of sleep disorders, this is almost certainly a lie to cover for her bad behavior. You are partially paralyzed while asleep. This is responsible for that groggy, semi-weak feeling when you wake up (it's also responsible for feeling as if you can move only very slowly …
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:18 PM
3

Pre-crime is the word you're looking for. She thinks she's a precog, and that Minority Report isn't just a TV show.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:13 PM
0

Again, I would seriously doubt anyone who claimed to throw an actual punch, and not just an ineffectual flail, while still asleep. They shouldn't have the fine motor control to aim right, and they shouldn't have the muscle control to hit with any significant force.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:12 PM
-5

Again: sleeping walking, night terrors, sleep eating and other sleep-action disorders are disorders precisely because it's odd to display any significant motor coordination while asleep. You should be able to toss a little and flop around. Maybe you can kind of 'talk', which will be the occasional easy word and a lot of slurred nonsense. But an otherwise healthy individual cannot throw a punch while asleep.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:11 PM
-2

Not likely. Most people are partially paralyzed while in a dream-state. They won't wake up swinging without some other health issue getting in the way of that.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:09 PM
22

No, the correct answer is to roll your eyes and be completely and utterly dismissive of their emotions. They are looking for reassurance that they are behaving foolishly, and taking their tantrum seriously will only make them think it's a subconscious signal that they've picked up on. Or, just dump them. Honestly that's probably what I would do. But the above advice is for men who haven't come to the conclusion that difficult women aren't worth their time yet. Edit: meant for the guy below you..…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:07 PM
1

So a corrections office should just be allowed to fuck female prisoners, because there's no way that could be abused or anything...
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:55 AM
1

Humanity isn't human if you only show it to half the people. Then it's just discrimination. I'm not okay with women being let off with a slap on the wrist for something a man would hang over. That's too unjust. And no, I don't think teachers should be fucking kids. That should always be illegal, regardless of the ages. You don't get to use your authority to even subtly pressure someone into having sex with you. That's inherently wrong.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:54 AM
1

I don't see you offering up another solution.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:51 AM
1

Unfortunately, judges have repeatedly used their discretion to refuse to hold female perpetrators accountable. So I don't care about their loss of discretion. A judges 'discretion' will only help you if you're right, female or well connected. So getting rid of 'discretion' sounds like getting rid of corruption to me.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:51 AM
1

Their endless, histrionic wanking isn't good for anyone -- not for them, not for society, not for people actually in need of this kind of attention because they suffer real injustices. But the world has to be all about them to this type. I'm not sure there would be a modern Feminist movement without Histrionic Personality Disorder.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 12:34 AM
-22

They all come off as tabloids to an American, because they're all so partisan and sensationalized.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 06:56 AM
2

They say it, it's just that when they do, they mean, 'you all should stop being bitches to us!', because it never crosses their narcissistic thoughts that maybe they shouldn't be bitches, either.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 08:23 AM
1

So? If this law were to be passed, do you think that the courts would just say, 'well, they did this sarcastically, so we'll just ignore it!'. No. A law is a law. Two wrongs don't make a right -- something feminists really need to get through their thick fucking skulls. You do not prove anti-female bigotry wrong by indulging in anti-male bigotry. Indeed, to most people, you justify the former with the latter.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 08:22 AM
2

I don't see how it's relevant. Regardless of whether black women have more control or not, Women, as a social group, certainly do have more control. And you appear to be dishonestly using this one factoid as an excuse to ignore the greater truth. But black people are a minority, and not a terribly large one. Something can be true of women as a whole, but not black women specifically. You appear to be denying that.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 08:00 AM
2

The problem being, that didn't appear to be your point. Here's the point you think you made: 'You can't say this, because black women have less control than white men'. Here's the point you actually appeared to be making: 'You're wrong. Women don't have more control, and the fact that 8% of them have less control than 40% of the male group proves that men totally have control on dating apps'.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:58 AM
5

This is a repeated problem in gender studies -- a refusal to judge all by the same standard. It's not that no case can be made for different standards, it's that allowing different standards also allows a shit-ton of bias on the part of gender-researchers, who then go on and -- either subconsciously or consciously -- tweak their their results until they always say that women have it worse. Even when the results don't actually say that at all.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:56 AM
3

Because you're singling out about 8% of all women and saying that because they have difficulty, that women do not, as a whole, have an easier time in dating apps. You're just wrong. That's a valid reason to downvote someone.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:54 AM
1

In my experience, any male will hunt on any ground that's fertile. Only females do stupid things like assuming they're too good to cover all of their bases. top-tier men still using dating aps. Top tier women rarely do.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:51 AM
14

I was involved in Democratic politics all through-ought my twenties. These people are not fringe extremists. They are pretty typical for younger Democrats. I stopped being a Democrat when these... people, who rightfully complained about Bush's actions for eight years, suddenly decided that summary execution and drone attacks were awesome so long as Obama called the shots.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:49 AM
2

Are Australian's such douches that they need their own dictionary, or is that some kind of Taiwan knock-off of Webster's?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/16 01:29 PM
6

It's funny how the same communities who regularly dismiss any anecdote contrary to their world view as impossible, eat up with both knife and fork the same kind of nonsense when it confirms feminist biases. I also love how these people fail to notice how overwhelmingly feminist reddit is, particularly when compared to the population or even just millennials as a whole.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 01:05 PM
28

It sounds like she's trying to muddy things up to me, tbh. Like she knows that being clear about what happened would go badly for her, so she's trying to imply this and that, and hoping that you take the inference that something truly bad happened without her having to explain herself. It comes across as evasive and manipulative.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:44 AM
-9

You all claim to support the rights of all men. You all decided that he didn't deserve free speech rights because you didn't like what he had to say. We already knew that Roosh was an asshole. Now we all know that this sub is full of liars and hypocrites. Because I don't give a shit what Roosh was going to say or what movement he is in. He is a man, and his free speech rights were being attacked --and he was being threatened and intimidated. And you all didn't care because you don't like him. Wh…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:39 AM
0

He didn't just get criticized by you. You all refused to stand up for his free speech rights and his right to free association because it might make you look bad. You all literally refused to stick to your alleged principles because you thought he was icky. And he is. But now so are you.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:37 AM
4

I never really considered Emma Watson to be a high tier of hotness. She's cute, and if you like cutesy girl-next-door types, she's nice. I think that a lot of her supposed attractiveness (and I'm not saying that she isn't attractive, only that she isn't nearly as attractive as people like to claim) comes from the fact that she was so many men's first crush.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:36 PM
-1

Harry Potter was awesome in Horns.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:34 PM
11

If you've managed to survive in any major metroplitan city without accidentally bumping into someone for any significant amount of time, I have to assume that you have a psychological disorder of some kind. Normally, you accidentally brush up against a dozen people a day and pretend not to notice. You're either a troll or a liar. I doubt you've even stepped foot inside a major city anywhere on the globe.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:30 PM
2

What if his foot was asleep, he pulled his hamstring or had any number of other temporary foot/leg injuries. That would account for his awkward way of walking and his clumsiness. But no, in your mind the only possible explanation is that he's a perv who likes to bump into 60 year-old women.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:27 PM
9

This person has to be a troll, her 'only sane woman' shtick cannot be real. That, or autism. 'tard clearly thinks she's Sherlock.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:25 PM
7

Let's be honest here, the reason so many of these women can't find good men isn't really the economy or their own pickiness. I mean, those factors play their part. The big reason is that these are not good women to begin with. They have educations, but most men don't give a fuck if you have a degree or not. They may care about your intelligence, but never your degree. Men want a woman who makes their life easier and more enjoyable, and that's not something most of the women in these articles bri…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:16 PM
2

I'm not misremebering. It was iffy to start with, but the people in charge at least made some attempt at being inclusive and ignoring the concern trolls who infest this sub. Remember when 'What does this have to do with men's rights?' was universally downvoted? Because I sure as fuck do. Now it becomes the focal point of half the conversations here. You people are too busy trying to be fairminded to be effective. You're too concerned with what liberals say about you to be effective. You're too c…
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:12 AM
4

No, you clearly don't. Everything you've said here proves that you don't. You're just flat-out lying in that first sentence. Everything else you say in this comment is an attempt to justify that lie. You aren't doing this to keep things topical. You're doing it because you don't want your lefty buddies making fun of you over this. That is literally all there is to it.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:31 PM
-1

Some of us care about the rights of men because we care about rights more broadly, and not just the rights of people we agree about. This is about you trying to look good to your lefty mod buddies and deflect criticism from people you respect due to you both sharing political views. It has nothing to do with anything but that. You're either lying to us, or lying to yourself.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:30 PM
5

I don't care about countering their message. Their message will never find broader acceptance. You aren't doing this to 'counter their message'. You're doing this to look better to the left-wingers.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:28 PM
4

I'm not going to waste my time protesting someone I don't give a damn about just to make some leftists feel better about themselves.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:27 PM
2

It is a bad idea. It will cause bad blood between the MRM and a source of potential recruits, while at the same time sapping our energy by attacking someone who most of us don't give a shit about -- and that attack will be seen as the PC left pulling your strings. It's a terrible idea. Care less what the people who hate you think about you -- that's a good idea.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:26 PM
2

This is the problem with this sub. It's too far left to legitimately criticize feminism without feeling like a bunch of traitors. They care more about what other progressives think about them, than they do about men's rights. That's been the problem here for at least a year now.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:23 PM
1

I'm pretty sure that most people who despise this mod's actions have already left. I know I did, and I have no doubt that others have as well. At this point, this community is too interested in self-policing to genuinely stand on any principle at all. It was a good idea at first. Now it clearly isn't. The people who run this sub are too typically reddit to be of any use to anyone.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:22 PM
4

This is an argument. I don't buy into it. It sounds like witchcraft and voodoo to me, and even intelligent people are too prone to magical thinking when they think it'll cover them in glory and make them look 'progressive'. But this isn't scientific fact. People like to run around acting like this is proven science, but it isn't. It's the opinion of some sociologists whose opinion is in vogue politically, but there isn't that much to actually support it.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:21 AM
1

From an American's perspective, it's no worse than the rest of your rags over there. The Guardian is absolutely shit, and you brits rave about it.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:32 AM
1

Feminists seem to think that the term 'straw man' applies to the act of people making criticisms they can't easily defend against, rather than criticisms that aren't actually true.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:11 AM
2

It's irrelevant due to how US law works. To put it simply, we have an aspect of the constitution called the Equal Protection Clause, which forbids the creation of laws that only affect certain classes of people. So you can forbid discrimination on the basis of gender, but you cannot ban discrimination against women specifically. Either all genders have to be covered, or the law isn't considered valid. It's a little more complicated than that, but it's the gist of it.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:20 AM
2

Too many people have shy bladders for this to be viable. Most people art not comfortable getting their pants off or letting it dangle in a mixed setting of strangers.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:13 AM
1

You can't use a thing to prove itself. You simply cannot say, 'The only reason she could be allowed to break confidentiality is if he threatened violence. She broke confidentiality, therefore he must have threatened violence'. You have to prove that he threatened violence to prove that her behavior is justified. Gee, a person believing themselves to be innocent would resist imprisonment. That is not a threat of violence. And we don't see any threat of violence. We only have you claiming that it …
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:11 AM
1

Calling the police on a non-violent individual you believe you be mentally disturbed is a good way to get that individual killed. So I doubt this woman's integrity to begin with. And it seemed like she was deliberately trying to get him worked up to justify calling the police. This did not even come close to the reaching the 'danger to yourself or others' threshold. There was no specific plan. Fear, anger and frustration alone can all cause this level of distress without any disorders mucking up…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:08 AM
5

Eh, I'm iffy on the 'gay rights are men's rights' thing. Gay rights are important, but gays make up less than 5% of all men. And there are a lot of gay women. It's more of a separate thing altogether, which isn't to say that it's not important, but no feminist supportive of gay rights can honestly say she's supporting men. She's supporting gay men and women, but not all men.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 10:55 AM
1

If someone tells you that they hate you, do yourself a favor and believe them.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 11:43 AM
5

This would never be allowed in my country. And that's what stings you. Americans are not ashamed about the ways in which you taunt us. We love our guns. We are not embarrassed to be tacky or obnoxious sometimes. Many of us like to think of ourselves as 'simple' people, we do not care if you say our culture is shallow. We like the fact that other countries know that we will go apeshit if you fuck with us, even if we don't have to. But you like to think of yourselves as an advanced, enlightened pe…
/r/PussyPass23/01/16 11:39 AM
-1

You have laws allowing it. That kind of puts the lie to your 'this does not represent an accepted practice!' line, doesn't it? I mean, if something isn't acceptable, you don't create a law specifically to allow it, now do you?
/r/PussyPass23/01/16 11:22 AM
1

Lmao. It's not the actions of one magistrate's court. It's that you have laws like this in the first place. It's that your system creates laws like this. That is very telling. This is beyond anything we have in America to such a huge degree. A sizable chunk of our constitution is dedicated entirely to prevent things like this. This is literally the same kind of shit we get taught in school as to why we wanted to ditch your sorry asses in the first place. And almost 250 years after we left your c…
/r/PussyPass23/01/16 11:21 AM
-1

That it even can be used in this way is enough to terrify your average American. And it should be. If you weren't so beaten down by the reality of living in what is apparently a police state, you would be shocked and appalled by this as well.
/r/PussyPass23/01/16 11:15 AM
0

Honestly, who gives a shit about Europeans if they allow shit like this to go on in our country? I'll take 'Murica-style bullshit over a weak-kneed bunch of snobs who don't even have the balls to keep their own kids from being molested by their nobility, or to keep the government out of their god-damned bedrooms and off of their fucking internet. Britain is a sorry piece of a shit of a country. I despise their government and way of life. I pity the pathetic, groveling nature of their people. For…
/r/PussyPass23/01/16 11:14 AM
1

And this is why I laugh in the face of any European who proposes to tell Americans about freedom. You do not have freedom. You do not have rights. You have privileges, which your governmental 'betters' can take away from you at any time, for any reason. Britain is a joke of a country. No self-respecting group of men would ever allow their country to end up like this.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 11:08 AM
1

If you don't have a written constitution, then no, you don't have human rights. You have privileges granted to you by your betters until they choose to take them away, but you don't have rights by the typical western conception of rights.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 11:03 AM
1

I would, too, but the rules are the rules. And if this society is going to be so willing to throw away men, it has to be willing to throw away women, too.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:57 AM
1

Good. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. This isn't a 'doxx'. This is a felony, not someone being a slight asshole or saying something certain people don't want to hear. This is a crime. Going after her is perfect, noble and good.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:56 AM
1

Lmao. I would suggest that you look up the incorporation of amendments. The whole of the Bill of Rights (of which, with the sixth amendment is certainly part) has been applied to the states at this point. Also, if a school accepts any government assistance at all, it will be impossible to argue that they aren't subject to federal rules and guidelines. And almost all of them accept government assistance.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 09:26 AM
0

While screenshots can be faked, you're going to have to prove that this one was, or you can't just be like /r/thathappened!
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:00 AM
5

Indeed. There were once problems with the way women were treated even over and above the shitty way men were treated in society. And there were broad-based movements to change that. But at this point, those don't exist. The feminists of this day are almost universally drawn to the movement because it creates an intellectual framework that justifies their bullying.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 10:59 AM
0

I can't stand men who live for praise. I don't care much for it in women, but I really can't stand it in men.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:48 AM
1

/r/science is a joke. It's an ideological shithole with thousands of mods, that somehow always manages to complain about being 'understaffed'. They can't do with a thousand mods what other subs can do with ten mods. Mostly because of their psychotic level of ideological control.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:36 AM
2

It's a problem with partisans in general. They mostly only want to make rules other people have to follow.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:33 AM
1

That is feminism for you.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:32 AM
2

In all fairness, the arc of human history is as broad as it is long, and somewhere, somewhen, a man has indeed no doubt lectures a woman on the proper use of tampons. The big difference is, other men didn't then start repeating the utter bullshit that flowed out of that first man's mouth. Other men did not build a psuedo-science out of it. Other men did not act like women were fools for not automatically listening to a man who told them they were womanning wrong. Feminism has become a caricature…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:31 AM
2

Oh look, the same feminists who act like their own research is infallable have decided to ignore research from a field they have absolutely no understanding of. Watching feminists try to criticize actual researchers would be funny if it wasn't so damned disturbing. These people have no actual science background. They don't understand ergonomics or statistics. All they see is something they don't like, so they attack!
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:29 AM
7

The world won't burn. Reddit just acts like bunch of ten year-olds when it comes to politicians it doesn't like.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:24 AM
3

And liberals spent the last decade accusing only other people of epistemic closure...
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:23 AM
1

I would support him if he indulge in stuff like this. But he does, so I won't.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:23 AM
3

Fine. But Democrats can't then turn around and complain that men won't vote for them. And the majority of men in this country will never vote for a Democrat. Reddit can downvote that statement all it wants, but it's been decades since the Democratic party won the majority of men's votes, and it won't likely ever win it again. People know instinctively not to vote for those who openly despise them. The Democratic party is anti-male -- openly contemptuous of men. So I won't vote for them. Most men…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:21 AM
2

I would invite you to actually investigate why that system was shut down in the first place, if you think that the current system is a worse one. The thing about properly functioning brains is, 90% of everyone who has ever been committed on this earth has had one. Most diseases don't present with physical symptoms, so how do we know that you have a properly functioning brain? Are you sure that your parents, or a teacher, or cop or some other random government official won't decide that you're a …
/r/MensRights17/01/16 09:59 AM
1

Yeah... No, I don't think it's a good idea to let the government involuntarily commit non-violent people on it's say-so alone... I mean, what trouble could that possibly cause? This is the last thing any country needs. The track record on that kind of thing is horrible. Either you turn asylums into political gulags (like most of the times this has been tried in human history) or you end up with prison-camps where sane people are held in order to cover janitorial shifts, sweat-shop manufacturing …
/r/MensRights17/01/16 09:56 AM
1

This always sounded like a 'no true scotsmen' type of thing to me.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 01:04 PM
1

Not entirely true. Most states, you can sleep with someone who is inebriated within the context a long-term relationship without running afoul of the law.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:03 AM
1

Example 1: minorly misogynistic, mostly due to an overly broad generalization. Though this is fairly common venting among both genders -- OMG, how can they be so self-centered and clueless! It's part of the human condition to only see this flaw in others without accepting that we possess it ourselves. Example 2: not misogyny. It's an opinion that you consider chauvanistic, but it comports well enough with observed cultural behavior. This man did not, after all, create the maxim 'Happy Wife, Happ…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 10:13 PM
1

I'm sorry that I didn't comment stalk you. But I'm still not going to give your thoughts much weight. I am responsible for what I do. I am somewhat responsible for the things I inspire others to do. I am not at all responsible for the things people I do not know, but who share some small aspect of my being, do. That isn't mine to own. I am not responsible for the behavior of men. I am not responsible for the behavior of MRAs. And everyone acts badly sometimes -- they have to be given room to act…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 10:08 PM
3

Rey is a mary sue, but she's too child-like to come off as an 'empowered woman' trope. Every scene she's in, it's like she's a twelve year old who has only just started to notice and interact with the world around her in a deep and meaningful way, as if every other experience has just happened to her, and this is the first time she feels like a genuine participant. Honestly, almost all of the younger characters come off as teenagers rather than the late-twenty somethings they appear to be. Kylo …
/r/MensRights04/01/16 02:29 PM
2

He's physically tough and emotionally weak. He is an emo -- there's no way around that. But instead of ineffectually bitching about how he'd like to burn the world, he has to power to actually do so. What can be more terrifying than that? He isn't the kind of bad guy you look up to or who younger kids idealize -- Vader was that, and this movie displays that very well. But Vader also came back from the edge because he was, at the time of the second trilogy, a mature adult with something to lose (…
/r/MensRights04/01/16 02:21 PM
3

Tell me, do you run into female-dominated conversations and police their opinions of men? Because I have literally never seen anyone on reddit do that. And that likely accounts for some of the hostile reaction you're getting. A lot of people pretend to be trying to call a fair game, but if you examine the calls they actually make, only seem to call fouls against one team. This culture is literally drowning in examples of women making broad generalizations about male behavior -- feminism is itsel…
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:53 AM
1

She's made herself believe it. In her head, likely not. But in her heart, she just knows that every negative thing about feminism is just an MRA invention. Because nothing could ever actually be wrong with feminism. Nothing. At all. Ever. And you know she's a feminist, because your average person has never even heard the term MRA before.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:37 AM
0

We need actual studies, not extrapolations of government figures that may or may not be accurate and certainly aren't comprehensive. Every MRA on here can cite at least one example of the government just making shit up because feminists pressures them into it. The UN massively exaggerates female poverty without citations. Every local police department lies about the incidence rate of male-victim domestic abuse. Politicians just pull shit out of their ass. The FBI is not terribly reliable given t…
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:32 AM
1

The thing is, nobody says anything unless they have a reason to say it. So why did you say this? And it's hard to get evidence for burglary. If the suspect wears gloves or has no record, they aren't getting caught. You will never see justice. You will never recover any of your stolen goods. Rape is hardly unique in this aspect, despite what some people like to claim.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:30 AM
1

You're not actually making any kind of point. You're just farting in a crowded room and daring someone to point it out.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 11:27 AM
4

This isn't a real statistic. It's a feminist lie advanced by governments. It has no citation, no study behind it. Governments do not issue scientific figures. They issue political ones.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 05:59 PM
5

I don't find that credible. That's lower than even the lowest study done in a research environment. It's a feminist lie. They often get governments to lie -- government figures are not scientific, they are political, advanced by political bodies. Any feminist who claims that there is a one ten-thousandth percent chance that any given rape accusation is false should be considered a liar. Because you know you're lying. NO crime has that low an incidence rate.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 05:58 PM
8

It makes me question your honesty that you deliberately chose the study with the lowest rate. There have been several studies. Yet you pick one -- and only one -- that indicates the lowest possible number. Ever consider that a study which can't even pin the number down to withing a few standard deviations might not be the one to cite to begin with? 2-8% is massive range. edit: to put it bluntly, the fact that this issue is so rarely studied makes me question the honesty of the entire rape statis…
/r/MensRights03/01/16 05:52 PM
1

So you made it up, then? And chances are, your 'audit' was a political witch-hunt waged by a Democratic mayor running on a 'War on Women' platform. It's not uncommon these days for government bodies to put out political reports that find whatever this pressure group or that pressure group wants them to find. Feminists want to find secret, hidden rapes. Democratic politicians oblige them. That's what's going on with colleges right now, and it's likely going on with police departments too -- polit…
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:29 AM
1

Shit like this is why so many people hate feminists. One BS assumption (controversial because feminists upvoted it, even though it is provably untrue to anyone who clicked the link they upvoted it anyway because they want to believe it) goes down, so you toss up a new one! Liars. Almost all of you are complete fucking liars.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:26 AM
1

Prove this, instead of just assuming it.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:24 AM
1

I don't know where reddit learned of Poe's law, but they didn't learn a valid version of it. Poe's law is not 'It's always a troll' -- that's just something redditors who aren't nearly as smart as they'd like to think have decided. Poe's law is that you can't tell the difference between a troll and a genuine nutter.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:21 AM
3

Not really. A lot of the time, people are pointlessly contrarian on reddit. They disagree even if they have no valid disagreement. And then the other contarians jump on board.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:19 AM
2

And your view will imprison innocent people, because it contains a faith in the criminal justice system which simply cannot be backed up by reality.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:17 AM
1

Yes. But it's foolish to pretend that it's not valuable to in and of itself to note that the number of false accusations is fairly static. It looks like people who want to disagree with the fact that false rape accusations are using this difference to 'attack' a claim they don't like, even if that attack makes no logical sense. That's the impression I'm getting on this thread -- that feminists here from the front page are just flinging shit in the hopes that if they poke a single hole in an argu…
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:15 AM
2

I am getting a little tired of people acting like we have to constantly think of tiny rump populations. Asexuals don't even make 1% of the population. It isn't 'erasing' those populations not to mention them. I don't mention color-blind people constantly, either, and those are far more common.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:12 AM
8

Her point is nonsense, though. She doesn't indicate that it's rude. She indicates that she thinks that men have no right to look. You are, in fact, permitted to ignore most social nicities.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:11 AM
6

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with intentions. Go find me any case at all where a man does something similar without being charged with sexual assault.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:51 AM
1

You keep adding distinctions every time someone points out new facts. That's a clear sign of sophistry -- arguing backwards from a position in order to justify it. This just sounds like special pleading.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:50 AM
1

This is not remotely true, or being a peeping tom wouldn't be illegal.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:49 AM
0

This sounds like a distinction invented entirely to justify the double standard to me. It's just sophistry.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:48 AM
-14

Tagging as 'Cop Shill'. I will downvote anything I ever see you say about everything. Because someone who defends police brutality is not worthy of being heard out. Prove yourself an idiot, and I'm not going to listen to you.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:27 PM
0

He is a cop. No chance in hell him, /u/hork23, /u/azothlike, and /u/fallofthewest are anything but police forum brigaders.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:24 PM
0

Take your brigade back to /r/protectandserve. You're shit. You're lower than shit. You're the worms that live in shit. Edit: It's pieces of shit like you that make it clear -- the only good cop, is a dead cop.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:23 PM
1

The majority of innocent people killed by cops are men, too. And you don't give a fuck about them. This guy isn't even black. You're the one introducing race into this. That means that you're almost certainly the racist here. I agree that BLM is shit, trying to racialize a situation that race has little to do with. but that's because police brutality affects everyone, not because it doesn't exist at all like you're trying to say. Because you a scummy piece of shit shill who will defend the right…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:20 PM
3

He's not the one defending the indefensible here, buddy. Assholes like you think that cops killing innocent people is perfectly okay. If it were up to me, we'd send people like you to the bottom of the ocean. Maybe then you and your buddies would get why state violence is a bad thing?
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:18 PM
1

Stop apologizing for police brutality you worthless piece of shit.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:17 PM
1

Oh look, another piece of shit who loves himself some police brutality. Go rot in hell, you fascist piece of shit.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:17 PM
1

Spain also spent 50 years as a fascist dictatorship and never once did anything about it. I have no respect for Spain.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:15 PM
2

These people hate the daily mail and love the guardian, despite the fact that the guardian is the most anti-male rag on the planet.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:14 PM
2

Because we've seen how other domestic violence issues, which also are often instigated by women (most physical abusers of children are women, for instance), and those charges are still mostly laid on men. This will be no different. The cops will always give women a pass, and so will the courts.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:13 PM
2

They do not mention in the headline that it applies to women as well Because it never will?
/r/MensRights31/12/15 01:12 PM
3

Women shouldn't be punished for divorce... but men should totally be punished for divorce.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 04:01 PM
5

The CDC just isn't reliable. It's a government body -- that means that it is a political body. I would dismiss anything it has to say on science almost out of hand. If it isn't published in a journal -- if it's published by the UN, the CDC, in a book or anywhere else -- then it just isn't science. It's politics.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 03:49 PM
1

No you werent. Or youd have been taught not to hit anyone weaker than you. You were only taught not to hit girls.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 10:50 AM
1

Some women are assholes to men, too. But thats not oppresssion. Thats some people being assholes.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 10:39 AM
1

Bodily integrity.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:03 PM
1

No. iIt started in the 19th century by the same kooks who though eating cereal would control your passions. The purpose was to make masutrbation less pleasurable for men. It was never cultural in the US. It was never about sanitation -- that was invented as an excuse later on.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:02 PM
2

In my experience, vey few women care about mens issues' So, not all women, but easily a majority of them. Tell me, do you run into feminist threads and challenge their generalizations of men?
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:00 PM
1

Men don't get free shit. WTF is wrong with you all that every time a woman doesn't get free shit, it's a violation? Why do women deserve everything free?
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:58 AM
1

You want a medical procedure for free,and without them asking you to fill out medeical history. LOL.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:56 AM
2

It was never done for sanitry reasons. It was initiall instituted to make masturbation less pleasurable.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:53 AM
1

if we start answering thatqueston, we'll never stop. every discussion will get bogged down by long threads demanding justification on every issue. then the trolls will start debating the justifications, etc. Its already a favorite of trolls for that reason.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 12:53 PM
4

No, thats just the way feminists here get around the 'no insults'rule, and its only allowed because of tbri's laughbly obvious bias
/r/MensRights24/12/15 10:12 AM
5

You personally insulted him by dismissing his experiences. And highlighting his immaturity, as you put it, also highlghts your own.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 10:09 AM
0

Maybe they know something we dont.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 10:07 AM
2

It's a clear point of law in the US, called the Supremacy Clause. Title IX is a list of laws created to guarantee constitutional rights, so no state law is capable of preempting it. It's extremely clear. This is just legislators trying to bully plaintiffs out of filing suit. The state has no leg whatsoever to stand on.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 11:20 AM
1

I never signed up for the draft. This is a blatant lie. You signed up for selective service. Everyone signs up for selective service. What the fuck do you think selective service is? I mean, are you really this goddamned stupid, or do you expect that we all are? Because I can guarantee you that either of those thoughts indicate that you are easily one of the stupidest motherfuckers who ever walked this earth.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 11:14 AM
1

The movie was Wanted, and judging by this 'synopsis', that's about the point the artists stopped watching it, too. The entire scenario described here turns out to be a honeypot trap. He never surpasses the girl in talent. He doesn't end up with her at all. Her purpose was trick him into doing the villain's bidding while simultaneously distracting him from realizing the villain's plan.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:21 AM
1

It actually is if they don't ban the color purpose from female outfits.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 01:28 PM
-6

Second, what happened with the police is something you're going to have to put behind you. Cops are not (strictly) law enforcement, most of their job is peace enforcement. No, he should not 'put this behind him'. The fact that cops are scum who always assume that men are guilty and take men out of their own goddamned homes is not something that men or society should 'put behind' us. Fuck you for even suggesting that we just lay back and accept this just because you're a cop worshipper.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 10:24 AM
6

It sounds like a mob threat to me, complete with allegedly plausible deniability. 'I'm not threatening you... I'm just saying, if you don't go along with what I say, my lawyer and I will slander you in court'.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 11:01 AM
8

They gave her class credit to carry her mattress around And that's the reason why they want to settle the case. They literally gave her a financial incentive to harass him.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 11:00 AM
11

They try to get around it. But most of these school are state-sponsored -- either they are officially state schools, or they accept enough money from the government that they don't get to make the 'but we're a private institution!' argument anymore. And either way, these 'courts' were set up because the federal government sent them a letter saying they had to set them up. People acting like this is about private orgs are either liars, or they just don't know what they're talking about.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 10:59 AM
1

This is logical at all, it's just emotion from a different perspective. He doesn't like the death penalty, so it's good that it didn't get applied. That's the obvious subtext of this comment, and logic has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:51 AM
1

I am sick and tired of this sub upvoting autistic nonsense like this. I don't care if you do agree with the underlying laws or not, they still have to be applied equally.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:50 AM
1

Sister Shakes is one of the scummiest, most hypocritical and yet also one of the most influential feminists in the liberal blogosphere.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:48 AM
3

I don't believe you. It's easy to just pull out magic credentials that prove yourself right on the internet.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:14 PM
1

I read The Stand a few years ago. Is Randall Flagg going to come get me? You can write anything you want. That's the joy of writing.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:11 PM
3

Again, we read it. The article is just typical feminist scaremongering bullshit. Rape is rare. A lot of campuses have no significant crime whatsoever. 'Inferred crime' -- that is, crime made up because biased surveys made by biased researchers like Mary P Koss, is not a valid point of comparison. Particularly with rape, where researchers play a shitload of games to both expand the definition of rape and conflate it with other, far more minor acts of 'sexual assault' (like slapping someones but, …
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:09 PM
6

We read it. The article is just full of shit. Rape is, in reality, the second rarest violent crime -- only murder is less likely to happen to you than being raped. It makes perfect sense that most campuses, many of which will be community colleges with no private student areas at all, would have no rape. These numbers only seem like bullshit if you assume that rape is a lot more common than it really is.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:04 PM
3

If you look at the actual number of rapes each year, and not the made-up numbers feminists like to use, it makes sense that there would be plenty of schools without any rapes. A lot are community colleges; no private student areas, much less chance of any kind of crime happening there. Up here in the SUNY system, there are plenty of campuses without any significant crime whatsoever for that very reason.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:01 PM
11

Then refute his points. I am tired of bitch feminism thinking that snarky disdain is the same thing as refutation. IT is not. It is merely a grownup version of a child's temper tantrum. If you have a point, make it. If you don't, keep your mouth shut. That's what a reasonable person would do. But this... this is just a guttural expression of emotion. It has no place among adults.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 01:33 PM
2

If it were restricted to only the things this sub was supposed to be about, there would be like six links in total, and every one of them would have the regulars here on the verge of hanging themselves in despair.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 01:29 PM
1

I don't think you understood the song...
/r/MensRights06/12/15 01:28 PM
16

I never got this question. I mean, people do all kinds of evil shit that I, as a non-evil person, do not understand. Why would one person want to murder another? Why would anyone want to have sex with a child? Why would someone choose to rob someone to buy meth? The mind boggles. But they do it, and they do it on a fairly regular basis.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 01:25 PM
38

Not from a aesthetic perspective. And that's what works when it comes to propaganda. And yes, anything created with the intent to shape or mold opinions is propaganda, even if 100% factual. Too many engineers in here, not enough folks who get people or advertising.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 01:24 PM
1

What I actually said was "Fuck you, you white trash bitch!". That was the right thing to say anyway. Being reasonable with that sort is a waste of time.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 11:09 AM
11

The problem being, the kind of man she wants won't date her anyway, because he wants a woman who already knows her place.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:46 AM
3

This woman is the reason why the word 'cunt' exists.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:45 AM
5

No, political indoctrination in schools is not a good thing. It's an evil thing, no matter who does it or why. It's a corruption of the very purpose of education -- to teach people how to think, not what to think.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 12:27 PM
1

It's not about re-offending. It's about sending a message to women that they will no longer be given free rein to be psychopaths.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 12:24 PM
1

There are a lot of trolls here, tbh, and a lot of people who are here more to defend liberalism or feminism, than they are to advance men's rights.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:31 AM
-1

No, they aren't. Demanding consistency means everyone having to live by the same rules. They are demanding that we put consistency of personal belief over consistency in the law.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:28 AM
6

No. But men are losing their jobs because of it, so women need to lose theirs, too. That everyone be governed by the same rules is more important to me, than that everyone be governed by the rules I want. Because the latter would be a dictatorship, anyway, and one rule for all is founding stone of a just society.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:27 AM
7

There is this apparent believe among leftists and feminists specifically, that 'disagreeing with feminism' is somehow in par with hatespeech, and must be stopped. You see it in internet forum moderation. You see it in college rhetoric. You see it among political activists. You see it among social media companies. You see it everywhere feminists hold any sway whatsoever: this belief that criticism of feminism should never be allowed in any form, and that you are essential Hitler for making it.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:10 AM
-8

And Europeans wonder why Americans are so arrogant... It's because our country is superior to their countries or the other countries their descendants have founded. We believe in freedom, and they do not. Our culture dominates the entire planet -- their children watch our movies, listen to our music and read our books. We have rights under the constitution, while they at most have privileges the elite of their countries yank away with no thought or consequence. This woman would have been fired i…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:53 PM
4

Then why does 90% of this shit come from Canada?
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:19 PM
-1

Many apologies for seeking a confirmed source / evidence. The complaint is that you didn't actually do this, and simply asked someone on the internet to 'prove it!', instead of actually seeking proof yourself.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:18 AM
2

It can be both, you know.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:16 AM
1

I believe that this, lime many feminist policies, are the elite's way of instituting population control. And honest, that's disgusting, and I don't believe for a moment that the higher-up feminists haven't realized this yet.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 12:29 PM
0

If you can't convince a member of the other gender to have a child with you, you are genetically unfit to have children. Your genes should be removed from the species, as that is in fact the natural course of evolution. Having kids is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the other gender.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 03:04 AM
4

You have always had a strong tendency toward self-interested delusion. Edit, and again, anonymity was promised to them. What value does the promise of no financial strings have when the government has already reneged on a promise as important as anonymity?
/r/MensRights28/11/15 03:01 AM
2

Anonymous gamete donation and closed adoption, in the opinion of many legal scholars, both contravene the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. fuck the worthless, lying UN
/r/MensRights28/11/15 03:00 AM
6

If the promise of anonymity is reneged on, why would anyone trust the promise of no payments?
/r/MensRights28/11/15 02:59 AM
3

They don't have to be wholly responsible. They are lying hypocrites, and that's the important point here. They claim to be progressive, but hold puritanical values. They claim to be for equality, but think men should bear more responsibility for everything. That's worth criticizing on it's own.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter