TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Aberu Archive

View 0 posts and 88 comments by Aberu 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)
0

Angry angry angry. That's what your movement is all about isn't it?
/r/MensRights03/07/15 03:12 AM
0

Actually NOW's resolution specifically mentions how men are being discriminated against by the draft. You are making up intentions that aren't there.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 11:21 PM
-1

Yup I use ad locker for security reasons but when it's a legit site I disable it. Like any blog site or whatever. Twitch as well.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 11:20 PM
-4

Whoops! I didn't lie, I just forgot I had AdBlocker installed on this computer. Disabled for that site now. And not changing it, I see no reason to.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 02:01 PM
-6

I won't take part in people viewing content without paying content producers in some way or another, you can supply an archive link for everyone else if you'd like of course. There's also not a single ad on that page I linked, so... It's a non-profit that takes donations.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:45 PM
-6

We also need to protect the notion that we can be as masculine as is natural for us without our behavior being altered. Often I see many people mistaking their masculinity for just misbehaving. I think that's where this interpretation of events comes from. 20% of american boys are on ADD medication, these are extremely high rates. What does that have to do with anything? I agree that psychiatry is a little weird here in the United States. I don't think it's a conspiracy to de-masculinize boys fo…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:43 PM
-5

Yes because men who are seen as "female" stereotypically in prison are raped more, because gender stereotypes of women being victims and women being easily victimized drive a lot of this. Why does this matter to you? It's still advocacy for MEN being able to be not as "masculine" and not get attacked for it. Seriously, wtf are you on about?
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:17 PM
-4

And Lovis Stannow, a feminist, lead the charge for that particular legislation, while she was and still is the leader of the organization. But it doesn't count because of your genetic fallacy usage that the organization wasn't founded as a feminist organization, so feminists still haven't done anything for men, supposedly. /s
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:16 PM
-4

Rapists often anally penetrate their female victims. And male victims... In this case, you cannot protect women without also protecting men. So? I still don't get why you need feminists to fight for something to change on a gender issue that is EXCLUSIVELY about men. In 1980 NOW passed a resolution that said male-only selective service is discriminatory. Is that advocacy for something solely for men? Can you agree to put this to rest yet? The vast majority of the law makers are male. I don't see…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:13 PM
-1

Examples? And how do they compare with how men's lot were? If things were shitty for women they were shitty for men too. Women weren't allowed to vote. Women weren't allowed to own property. Women weren't allowed to say they didn't want to marry someone. Women weren't allowed to work at one point and then later weren't allowed to work many jobs. There's many more, but I thought it was a universally recognized fact that in general women were subservient to men and second class citizens until hist…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:07 PM
-1

What change has been made that does not also benefit women (i.e., men are given 50% of custody time with children) or disadvantages women (during the judicial process women are less likely to be convicted and serve a lesser sentence for the same crime when convicted, so removed that advantage women have) so men and women are made more equal? And that's where the problem in this conversation lies. I think if your requirement for feminists to be right in your eyes is to do something that does what…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 07:52 PM
0

You do realize the military is volunteer right now (at least in the U.S.), correct? If these women are put into this situation, they made the choice themselves and should have known the consequences of their choices. Who puts them there? This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of not only what point I was making, but also how the military works. When you sign up for the Army/Marines, you aren't given the choice to go to the front lines, that is something that is decided for you. Until recently…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 06:54 PM
-1

When was the last piece of legislation advocated by feminism that only helps men or helps men at the expense of women? Why does their support for legislation have to ONLY support men for it to be legitimate to you? Also pretty sure advocacy for women on the front lines in the military fits the description of the second thing you are asking for. Women literally get put in a more dangerous battle position, as a result less men are required to be in the front lines.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 03:06 PM
1

What's your definition of third wave feminism?
/r/MensRights01/07/15 03:03 PM
3

And you continue to insult me, refuse to actually respond directly to what I say, and spout thinly veiled rhetoric. Have a good life.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 02:33 PM
-4

Some feminist groups supported it because they were primarily concerned about rape in women's prisons. Source? Also the Prison Rape Elimination Act was heavily supported and pushed by Lovisa Stannow, a feminist. http://feministing.com/2014/03/15/the-feministing-five-lovisa-stannow/ There's a good interview with her. You'll note she talks about people/person/etc... non-gender OR she talks about male prisons. Not once in the interview does she focus on female prisons. But that is inconsistent with…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 02:03 PM
-9

Did you read what I wrote? The "male rape" part was an afterthought. It got token mention in a single sentence. I don't have that interpretation of it. Do you think they are implying forced anal sex is an afterthought as well? The words male and female are mentioned once. The word woman or women is never mentioned in that article. What is unequal about this? That sentence is closely followed by: With such an incomplete description, the FBI has undercounted rapes by hundreds of thousands of cases…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:59 PM
-1

That definition excludes victims of forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, statutory rape and male rape. Did you not read what you just linked me? You shouldn't call people dipshit just for disagreeing with you, dipshit. You shouldn't get so angry. Also what's your opinion of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, largely pushed by a feminist woman? That act greatly benefited men since the vast majority of victims of prison rape are men.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:49 PM
-4

As far as the FBI definition of rape, it was never feminists' primary goal to include male rape victims. Source?
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:44 PM
2

It's in support of equality. The social implication of the difference in the drinking age was about stereotypes that women would be more ladylike when drinking and thus more well behaved so they could be trusted with a lower drinking age. Listen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg talk about the significance of this case. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/08/the_mother_of_all_grizzlies.2.html If you need "feminists" to fight for the cause of smashing gender stereotypes, then …
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:19 PM
1

It's called a foundation. If you have a principled moral foundation from which to work with, you can then come to objective moral truth using that. The real debate is then whether you think morality needs to have foundations, needs to be argued for, or doesn't have any basis in reality whatsoever. AKA Do morals reals?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/15 05:30 PM
1

Me personally... Where they come from is my upbringing, friends, family, society, etc... How I justify them (which is what I think you actually meant here) is - http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/ Core principles? That's a tough one. A little vague. Anytime I'm asked about morality it's usually "what would you do in this situation" and then I have to construct the core principles. The silver rule is a good one. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated I don't think …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/15 05:25 PM
-7

name one single initiative feminism has taken on behalf of men. http://www.casebriefsummary.com/craig-v-boren/ EDIT: Anyone tuning in to read. I have no problem with Men's Rights Advocacy in principle, just in practice it seems to be more about anti-feminism reactionism than it does about fixing issues that effect men, and that's my disclaimer to my skepticism and motivation for discussing this, as a feminist, because like some of you may feel in regards to MRM, I feel feminism has an undeserved…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 05:20 PM
1

So what part of the research cited in the resources I provided was incorrect?
/r/TheRedPill10/05/15 03:33 AM
-4

So did you already read all the resources I gave you? Are you not interested in evidence that may change your mind?
/r/TheRedPill09/05/15 07:22 PM
3

And I don't buy into the idea that somehow the poor suddenly would have money to buy food if we stopped producing meat. I didn't suggest that. If anything the meat industry MAYBE drives down the cost of some farmed goods due to more subsidization of things that are both used in processed foods and in animal feed (like corn and soy). Killing animals before they have reached their natural lifetime isn't inevitable however. It's directly reliant upon human selfishness. But those are the two biggest…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 07:03 PM
1

Nope, 30.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 07:02 PM
3

Why should you stop? These are the two reasons that are most compelling to me. It causes harm to living beings that are solely bred to be killed before their lifetime ends and fed to humans. The environmental impact of animal farming is far heavier than typical agriculture with fruits and vegetables and wheat. Methane is a real issue, so are waste run-off, the food required to feed the animals uses even more land, etc... It's inefficient.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 06:34 PM
3

So if someone kills their pet dog because he felt like it, is that okay?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 05:22 PM
3

So by that reasoning, slavery was okay when it was legal because people that were in favor of it liked it, and it was legal, and there was no motivation to stop it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 04:10 PM
3

The problem is you changed "if everyone thought like you" to "if everyone IS you". I took "if I like it that means it's okay" which really is what you are saying, and showed how it's not a position you hold or anyone really holds on all sorts of other issues where a living thing is harmed and has it's autonomy violated. I'm demonstrating how you have made a special exception for this one thing because you like it. You are inconsistent. At least the other guy I'm debating said he would eat mental…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 03:31 PM
1

I know most people don't do that, but that's what I do. I don't believe something exists, but that is separate from if I believe that something doesn't exist. I think the only things I can surely say do not exist are things that are proven not to exist (hard to do) or things that are logically impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 03:20 PM
1

Why don't you believe that there are invisible ghost elves living in my back yard? I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say "there are no invisible ghost elves in your backyard" however.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 03:06 PM
3

THOUGHT like you, not IS you. Don't be silly.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 03:00 PM
1

How have you determined the likelihood of something's existence after you admitted that it's an "unfalsifiable hypothesis"? There's a good argument that rule of law enforced by the police is still "might is right" to be had though won't you agree? Okay but you said you like to do it, there is your justification for doing it. This isn't "feels" this is me wondering how you take that same reasoning and don't forgive murderers, rapists, etc... They just liked doing it, and they were justified, righ…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 02:56 PM
3

Humans are animals. Humans have one unique thing, the capacity of our brains. Does being more intelligent mean we then are justified in killing anyone less intelligent because we like to eat bacon? If everyone is living true to the golden rule the one who brakes it has the most advantage. And? So you think that as long as you have an "advantage" it's okay to do things that aren't ethically justifiable? You get an advantage over someone else if you murder them and get away with it, that doesn't m…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 02:47 PM
1

Oh okay, so you aren't claiming that objective morality DOESN'T exist. Got it, okay so let's move on. Why is doing something ethically acceptable solely because you like to do it? In my opinion your reasoning could be applied to someone saying they have justification for what they do because they like it, like cannibalism, murder, rape, slavery, etc...
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 02:42 PM
1

I'll argue for objective morality once you drop the claim that it DOESN'T exist. No shifting the burden of proof here buddy. I never asserted it does exist. We were talking ethics anyways, not morality.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 02:21 PM
2

Humans are animals for one thing. Animals feel pain, have emotions, and many are aware of their existence. Pigeons and chimpanzees have been shown to feel empathy in experiments. etc... They obviously have similarities that we use to consider whether or not to terminate a life or not (death penalty for instance, we try to do it in the most "humane" way for instance). Imagine there are two societies... Where eating meat is done. Where eating meat is not done. What benefit does society 1 have that…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:44 PM
2

Okay cool, now that that misunderstanding is out of the way, how do you defend eating meat on ethical grounds again?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:39 PM
2

No he is specifically addressing protesters. Notice all the speech about "revolutionary". These are his personal thoughts about what a revolutionary is or not. Aside from all this, why should I really care what his conjecture is?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:38 PM
3

You can't apply the I like it defense to everything. But this is special pleading. You are saying your reasoning only works for those certain special things you have determined are the special cases where "I like it therefore it is okay" apply. Why? How have you determined "I like it therefore it is okay" applies to the lives of animals being taken and not slavery, murder, rape, etc... No one said you are worse than hitler. I am asking for ethical justification to eat meat, and challenging your …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:36 PM
2

So let's get back to the core of it. It's okay for you to eat meat and wear leather because you like it, although there are alternatives that are certainly comparable that you have access to without any loss (other than something like "like) that don't result in taking a life? Is that what you are saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:34 PM
1

The scientific method doesn't lead us to "objective morality DOESN'T exist". That would be unjustified. Saying something DOESN'T exist when it clearly can but hasn't been demonstrated to exist at this time, is unscientific.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:32 PM
2

My bad. I'm in like 10 conversations at once, they are jumbled together. http://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2zbd4k/question_for_redpillers_does_this_affiliation/cpi4oly This is what I heard, and it wasn't you. I'm not playing internet gotcha games, it was merely a misunderstanding and confusion (another user said this not you). You should fucking relax.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:31 PM
3

People asked for it to be ethically defended here. The response was "I like meat therefore it's okay". That is not an ethical defense, because you can apply the reasoning to things that we know today are ethically wrong (slavery, murder, rape, etc...). I haven't seen anything other than that. Oh and you here said that if people tasted good you would be okay with factory farming mentally retarded people and eating them. I don't know what arguments I have presented that have been unsound. I have p…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 01:27 PM
2

Yup pretty sure you did because you think the law is the arbiter of morality and ethics.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:37 PM
2

You said "there is no such thing as objective morality" do you retract your unjustified assertion? Because the proper position would be "I don't see any evidence of objective morality, can you demonstrate that first?"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:36 PM
1

So you aren't defending eating meat, you admitted you are doing something wrong and don't care. Okay just wanted to clarify. That was the position I held for the last year, it's pretty common. I realized I was being a hypocrite because I couldn't kill an animal myself and have pets, yet was eating meat, but i stuck with it anyways and I can understand that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:35 PM
2

Militant? How is anyone doing that? Yes he's saying that throwing red paint on people or committing Eco-terrorism isn't justified. There's a difference between that and what is happening here, people asking you to justify eating meat ethically.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:31 PM
3

Some animals do though. You beat your pet dog, you can go to prison. The "I like it, therefore it is okay to do" defense only works for you on your special exceptions. What if you like murdering or raping or slavery? And your analogy is terrible. Eating meat isn't necessary or a body part. There's no permanent injury associated with refraining from eating meat. I'm asking why, given that you don't need to, you think you are ethically justified in eating meat.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:28 PM
2

Well, there you have it. You would eat the mentally handicapped if it was legal, they tasted good, and we're culturally factory farmed. I don't think your position is ethically defensible but at least you are consistent (or lying so you don't "lose" the argument, I can't tell which) in your warped morality.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:26 PM
3

Well I didn't say nobody should. I'm saying I don't see any reason to if you live in a society where you can live a full and healthy life without consuming animal products. I recently found out what I was doing was indefensible ethically. I'm curious why others think "I like it therefore it's okay" is an actual defense.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:24 PM
3

Let's stay on track. Your question covers like 2000 years of philosophy. How have you determined that objective morality does NOT exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 04:15 AM
3

Oh okay so if humans tasted good and they were mentally handicapped you would eat them? Also I work in plastics. There is a reason that pleather is cheaper than real leather.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 04:14 AM
3

In response to tastes good, if people tasted good would it be okay to raise "stupid" ones to eat? If "tastes good" is a benefit worthy of taking a life, why stop at non-humans? In response to leather being durable, you are aware of other materials that are just as durable that do not require killing an animal to make it, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 02:34 AM
1

I don't see an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:44 AM
2

If your reason to do something is, I like it therefore it's okay to do, you don't see how that is problematic?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:44 AM
2

That is a false analogy. No one is suggesting banning meat. We are talking about your personal ethics. You personally. What you are talking about, forcing lions to become vegetarians is 1) cruel and will kill them 2) is a violation of their autonomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:43 AM
2

Because those objections were non sequiturs to my point. They weren't worth addressing. Duty has nothing to do with ethics and morality. And your bald assertion that there is no objective morality wasn't backed up by anything whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 12:41 AM
1

Well I disagree with "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" because if we had that mindset our pre-evidence assumptions would have been "correct" until evidence pushed them out. You don't believe is fine. What you were saying is fundamentally different, that you believe NOT. Meaning if someone said there are aliens you would be saying "no aliens exist." Which would be a pretty big assumption. Saying that objective morality does not exist is an assertion. That's different than saying yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 10:44 PM
1

Well, I'm talking about highly active people that will need more. If your vegan diet can't hit the average of 50-65 grams of protein, then you are drinking Mountain Dew and eating Doritos exclusively LOL
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 10:41 PM
2

So the benefit is because you want to? Is that a consistent benefit you can apply to most moral questions? You are basically saying you want to, therefore that makes it okay to do. Oh and you are saying that humans can't be subject to "because I want to" because they are special (special pleading).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 10:39 PM
1

No no no. You just said, "there is no such thing as objective morality". That's the equivalent, given your example, of saying that no gods exist. You are making a positive claim of non-existence. You are now free to say that you don't "know if objective morality does or doesn't exist or is possible, but etc..."
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 10:05 PM
1

especially in light of your selective quote removing a diet which you support and roughly follow yourself. It wasn't selective quoting. I left it out because it was irrelevant. You conflated Paleo with LCHF, you are the one in error, since they are not one in the same. I didn't make an assertion, I was laughing at how similarly aligned endorsing Paleo is to endorsing some pseudo-evolutionary-psychology TRP mindset.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:59 PM
1

I find making moral arguments are pointless since there is no such thing as objective morality. How do you know there is no such thing as objective morality?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:57 PM
2

Tempeh has 31 grams of protein per 320 calories. That's a 1:10 ratio, which is what the good workout protein shakes have in them. It's soy based so the absorption is near 100% ideally. That's better than most animal product's protein. High-end athletes need about 1.5-1.8 grams of protein to 1 kilogram of weight, so this shouldn't be hard to achieve. If you are working out often, you drink protein shakes anyways, and most people take in too much protein anyways (for most people around 50-65g is e…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:53 PM
1

Whether or not something is moral isn't contingent upon whether or not it is legal, correct? We are discussing the morality/ethics of an act. At one point, slavery was legal, was it moral then because it was legal? Slave-owners liked owning slaves, and it brought benefit to them. Did that make it right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:49 PM
2

So what if human meat tasted good and made you happy? Is it then okay to eat humans?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:48 PM
2

Blah blah blah... Oh I thought this was a discussion board. My bad. Paleo often ends up being LCHF. Paleo is literally LCHF, but the specific LCHF fad diet categories (Keto or others like it) don't have a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense like "don't eat tomatoes" and "eat a ton of meat because our ancestor's did that all the time" (they didn't). Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian towards the end of his life. So what? It's just as stupid for you and OP to link diet to a group that isn't about d…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:46 PM
1

Because dairy destroys my insides. I get massive diarrhea and associate dairy with intense butt pain. I also like Almond milk, margarine that is non-dairy, never been a big fan of yogurt. I haven't fallen over dead by not having dairy. Dairy is from cows, why do you think it's essential for us as humans? I also love Asian food, and plenty of it can be made vegan. And Indian food. So things like this make it easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:43 PM
1

Vegan is just overkill though, it's hard to be healthy as a vegan. The only nutrition missing that I'm aware of is Vitamin B12, is there anything else I'm missing?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:37 PM
0

I don't see why it's crazy. Me and the fiancee have been doing the research and it seems pretty doable. Tempeh is awesome as a meat substitute in recipes, have you tried it? Also not having eggs bought from the store doesn't mean I can't raise my own chickens and treat them well like pets and take their eggs while they produce them!
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:36 PM
1

I'm pretty sure it's different when it's a species that doesn't have the capacity to reason itself into ethical behavior as a society, like we do. The ethical arguments rely on the fact that we should be held to a higher moral standard than the animals.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:35 PM
1

What if people tasted good? Would it be okay to eat people?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:34 PM
1

So the 9/11 truther is right why?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:33 PM
2

The more animal protein you eat the stronger you become. So how did these vegan body builders get so strong? http://www.greatveganathletes.com/bodybuilders
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:32 PM
1

As it stands I'm not willing to compromise my strength and energy for idealism that isn't important. Why do you think this would compromise your strength and energy? http://www.greatveganathletes.com/bodybuilders These are vegan bodybuilders, are they lacking in strength and energy in their diet?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:30 PM
2

Because I was specifically addressing how hilarious it was that you tend to see TRP support paleo, given that it's a pseudoscientific fad diet based on misconceptions about our evolution. It's comparable, because TRP is a pseudopsychologic fad based upon misconceptions about our evolution. I agree with LCHF to a degree. However, I prefer mediterranean which is similar. Just High fat isn't always good, it's what kind of fats, and what is the overall diet. Calorie restrictive diets also performed …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:28 PM
0

Without meat it is very hard to get all our nutrients without supplements. Since this seems to be one of your points, like what? The only nutrient I'm aware of like this is Vitamin B12, and if you are capable of buying the supplement, where is the harm? You say "without supplements" as if that would be too much of a burden for you to be capable to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:24 PM
1

I quit when I finally realized that my individual actions have no effect on the greater society, and that I was best off pursuing my own incentives, and that weird diets are socially alienating to lots of people. Let's apply this same mindset to slavery. If most people in 'Murica owned slaves (most did not, by hypothetical), would it be a good reason to keep owning slaves just because everyone else is doing it anyways? and that weird diets are socially alienating to lots of people. I have a good…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:23 PM
2

Well, the argument is in this field of study, there is no reputable good argument that has been made in favor of eating meat over not eating meat. It's a qualitative assessment. The other argument I see is if we don't need to eat meat, then we should have sufficient reason to eat meat because it causes harm to another creature, thus if there are no good reasons to eat meat instead of NOT eat meat you can conclude that not eating meat is ethically superior.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:21 PM
3

So we compare the two situations... You eat meat and buy leather. you don't eat meat and don't buy leather. The first requires an animal to be killed to do, the second does not. What benefit does the first one have over the second?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:18 PM
1

As far is it goes, the most common diet advice I've seen in TRP is for paleo It isn't much of a surprise that people who would advocate for things without good reasons would also advocate for something else without a lot of good reasons behind it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 09:11 PM
0

If they have moderators, and rules, and those moderators can say "you violated the rules you are banned" then they are private spaces. They are not a public space in the way that central park in NYC is a public space. Sure everyone has free entry, but not everyone is free to stay given certain circumstances. Censorship in public space is generally seen as wrong in a world where free speech/expression is valued. You moved the goal posts from a private space to make it seem as if it's a public spa…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/15 04:39 AM
-2

The feminism and 2X subs banning any dissonant posts. YouTube feminists disabling comments on their videos. It's their perogative to, they can moderate their private spaces if they want to, and you can choose to ignore or not support them. You can make your own community talking about the same thing without moderation if you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 08:52 PM
-1

It's a subreddit with moderation. That makes it exactly not a public space as you seem to imply.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 08:50 PM
1

As a "blue pill" swallower, I'll let you in on why I feel it's wrong to treat women as objects of desire and act upon those desires no matter what for the sole goal of achieving sexual gratification for oneself. Women are equal to me, and I wouldn't want to be treated that way. If I had a daughter I wouldn't want her to be treated that way. Imagining my mother being treated that way horrifies me so I won't do it to someone else. Imagining my sister being treated that way horrifies me so I won't …
/r/TheRedPill18/01/15 10:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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