TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Airforce987 Archive

View 3 posts and 111 comments by Airforce987 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Calling 911 on a police officer who is issuing a lawful order is by definition a misuse of the emergency line. Committing a crime in witness of an officer gives them immediate authority to arrest. Hence the warning. Again, it's not a great way to de-escalate, but there's nothing illegal about how the officer chooses to conduct the stop. And it didn't really matter in the end because the officer was within their authority to arrest anyway on obstruction charges for refusal to exit the vehicle.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/24 08:46 AM
2

ok, then it varies from state to state but most states do not have such a requirement
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/24 05:36 AM
-5

Legally police are not required to tell you why you were pulled over, they usually do out of courtesy or department policy but there is no legal requirement. You end up seeing it on the ticket, so it's not like a big mystery, but a lot of officers won't tell you why until they get your ID and registration/insurance, which you are compelled to provide legally.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/24 02:06 AM
-11

there's nothing illegal about how this cop conducted the stop. Little attempt to de-escalate sure, but he is not legally required to when a lawful order is given. Department policy may dictate how they want their officers to handle uncooperative drivers but there is nothing he did wrong in terms of the law. edit: lmao I made the same exact comment in two different places on this thread and one got 5 upvotes and this got 5 downvotes. gotta love reddit sometimes.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/24 02:02 AM
17

"Pretty sure that's an illegal threat, you're allowed to call another officer to a traffic stop if you're uncomfortable." No it isn't. A police officer is authorized to order any person inside a vehicle - passengers included - to exit during a traffic stop, and there doesn't have to be a reason, nor one articulated to them. You're also not entitled to have another officer conduct the stop. There's no law that requires police to have their supervisor or any other officer come to the scene if ther…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/24 01:58 AM
4

"allows nonconventional couple to legally registered without confusion" I'd argue it doesn't even do that because how does a child born to parents who use a surrogate get defined? The biological mother in this case is not the "birthing" parent.
/r/MensRights03/01/24 04:38 AM
1

From what I understand the agreement is that she be employed in any fast food joint not necessarily that exact restaurant or even any Chipotle, but even still it’s oddly specific. Just the idea of a judge saying “you must work at a McDonald’s/Burger King/etc. or you go to jail!” is what made me question the whole thing but whatever. I just laugh at the thought when she applies to a Wendy’s and they ask why she wants to work there and she says “the judge said so after I threw a burrito”
/r/PussyPassDenied08/12/23 05:57 AM
2

Thanks, I understand now that a plea deal can include whatever it wants as long as all parties and judge agree on it. However I still think it’s odd that there are no regulations on what can or cannot be included in a plea agreement. As it stands now, the only limitation is creativity, and should all parties agree, it’s potential that a plea deal could be something to the effect of “defendant must sit in an empty room and count to 10,000” There really ought to be something that says what should …
/r/PussyPassDenied08/12/23 02:31 AM
2

Even if it was a plea deal, I still don’t understand how the scope of the law allows for a court order to mandate someone’s employment. I’d get it, if it were considered “community service,” but I don’t believe a person can be mandated to volunteer for free in a place of business, at least one that is for-profit. So if she’s getting paid, it’s kind of a weird overstep of the law by the judge, imo.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/12/23 08:15 PM
79

PPD aside, how tf is it legal for a judge to sentence someone to work at a specific place of business?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/12/23 04:33 PM
1

No, offering sexual favors to a cop in lieu of a ticket definitely falls under bribery
/r/PussyPassDenied13/02/23 06:05 AM
2

probably not but maybe she could have skirted by with a suspension if it was her first offense
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/23 10:47 PM
21

just watch the first two minutes it's literally a subsection of video called "highlights"
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/23 10:43 PM
5

I bet her reasoning is that since the men are fighting, they’ll have access to military healthcare and provisions. Forgetting that not every single man has been conscripted.
/r/MensRights11/03/22 07:01 PM
1

I already laid that out in my comment but let me dumb it down for you. Wiki: “Men have more = bad” instead of “Here some cool women we can write about” You don’t have to stack women’s accomplishments against men’s in order to justify their addition to the encyclopedia. If they merit a bio, they deserve it in their own right. It isn’t a competition
/r/MensRights06/03/22 02:46 PM
2

I literally just explained why, did you read my comment? If someone is an expert in their field but haven’t done anything worth media coverage, they aren’t notable (for an encyclopedia). They will be notable in an academic or scientific journal for their subject. But until they do something that garners media attention (such as win a Nobel prize), they don’t warrant a wiki bio.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 11:13 PM
2

I didn't say that we wouldn't find anyone who was overlooked, just that there wouldn't be many. Certainly not enough to warrant the "lets catch up to the 1.34 billion articles written about men" And her story is indeed unique because its arguable she wasn't notable before she became the subject of a book/movie. I'm not downing her accomplishments, what she did for NASA and humanity is incredible, but most others who worked alongside her aren't notable enough for wiki articles because they aren't…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:50 PM
3

Wikipedia doesn’t have unlimited server space. They can’t host an article for every single person and their grandma. That’s why they have notability guidelines. It’s also an encyclopedia not an anthology.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:04 PM
1

Ok, her case is unique, but even still I think the fact that she didn’t have a wiki article before the book is justified. On Wikipedia, notability sometimes requires media coverage about the subject. Just being an authority in the industry isn’t enough to warrant a bio article, you have to do something the garners attention of the masses. If the news doesn’t cover it, you’re not notable. That’s why every NASA scientists doesn’t have a wiki bio, but hers does; she had a book and movie written abo…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:01 PM
6

A lot of time the guidelines for notability for Wikipedia aren’t exactly defined. Every subject and subtopic have their own parameters for what is considered notable, but when it’s unclear, they generally go with the rule of thumb that if a person is talked about among multiple media (news) outlets, that constitutes notability. I don’t know what went into each of those cases, but just speculating perhaps the women aren’t considered notable because they haven’t been the subject of a news story, a…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 08:55 PM
2

Not necessarily, a lot of authors do their own research by interviewing people themselves directly. Perhaps there were some sources talking about her, but most likely there were not enough to note her existence until her story found its way to the ears of an author, who then thought it was worthy enough telling. In fact her story is more worth telling because she’s a woman, I doubt there’s articles of every person who worked at NASA throughout the decades.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:52 PM
6

Ok but why is the “gap” a point of contention? Even if you tried to create a smaller gap, it’s going to take hundreds of millions of articles to create a dent in the 80% difference there is right now. Instead of focusing on the difference in representation, just say the project is aiming to flesh out industries and sectors where we haven’t begun to scratch the surface of female involvement. A big one I’m thinking of is in sports. No need to say “men have x number of articles, we should write mor…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:17 PM
3

Yes, but it requires research done by others, Wikipedia only writes articles based on the sources of other people’s research. As you pointed out, it wasn’t until the book came out that the article was written. We can’t write a wiki article unless someone does the research first.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 07:07 PM
4

“Close the gender gap” How exactly does one close a gap?
/r/MensRights05/03/22 06:43 PM
3

Writing about modern women is fine too, I have nothing against accomplished women at all. like I said, my concern is in the phrasing of “close the gender gap” it’s not going to be possible to have equal representation of articles. 1.36 billion more females would need to have an article written without another male one.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 06:36 PM
5

If that’s what the truth of history is, yes. Inflating the encyclopedia with women’s articles for the sake of equality isn’t doing justice to history. Not that it could happen anyway, because there’s barely any sources to draw from that we haven’t already discovered and written about.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 06:03 PM
3

Like who? Please tell me someone worthy of an encyclopedia article that isn’t already written about
/r/MensRights05/03/22 06:00 PM
8

As I stated in another comment, it’s the phrasing. I have no issues with creating more female biographies. But trying to somehow “close the gap” by writing 1.36 billion female biographies isn’t going to happen. If you do, it’s going to be with mostly people who aren’t worthy of an encyclopedia article.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 05:58 PM
6

Yes but that’s not the fault of historians, or people writing articles for Wikipedia. It can be (and is) noted that there was intense suppression of women throughout history but if the people who recorded the past didn’t talk about women, there’s no source that exists for us to research.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 05:55 PM
18

You're not wrong, but "many" is bit of a stretch. I'm not saying that we've written an article about every single person in history we have record of, but I am confident we've got about 99.9% of the important ones. Finding that last 0.1% is going to take research. The number of women in history who we haven't written biographies about already are likely not notable people. Assuming we research women who we don't know much about, the likelihood of finding many whose lives were A) notable B) recor…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:14 AM
76

The phrasing that "20% of [the biographies on wikipedia] are about women" For thousands of years of recorded history, it was almost exclusively men that were talked about. The women that were notable already have in depth articles. We can't go and find more women to write biographies about if there's no source to draw from. The simply math that "20% means inequality" is forgetting the fact that it's not inaccurate if only 20% of notable people in history were women. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:53 AM
72

Why is the "friend" involved if this is between you and the girl, if she was his ex-girlfriend? Is she in a relationship with him now? What prompted her to write a "written statement" if she is not pursuing legal action against you?
/r/MensRights02/02/22 09:04 AM
1

What does a 6’9” Slovakian hockey player for the New York Islanders have to do with this?
/r/MensRights25/01/22 05:05 AM
14

Yeah it’s wild, fortunately I think we can take some solace in the fact that all the articles about this woman are all reproduced from the Sun which is a British tabloid not known for their accuracy. Even if you wipe everything I brought up above, the main two questions you have to prove is: what makes her say her mother would have “delayed conception” if the doctor told her to take supplements, and as someone else mentioned, where is the proof he never did?
/r/MensRights02/12/21 04:50 AM
79

This cant be real. The Doctor is being held responsible for a spinal disorder that occurs by chance and genetics. It's also not a hereditary disposition that the Doctor might have warned a fetus could develop, and was negligent in preventing it. It's ultimately the parent's responsibility for the health of their child. If the supplements are standard prescription for any mother trying to conceive and the Doctor blatantly denied her request for them, then she might have a case. This is not what h…
/r/MensRights02/12/21 04:38 AM
9

During an interview for a job, it is definitely illegal After said job has been acquired, not illegal Would it be legal to ask someone during an interview if they have a disability? Yes, because that information could impact the company’s decision about whether to hire them or not. And that would be discrimination if they decide not to hire them based off said disability. Same with marital status, if a company doesn’t want to hire unmarried individuals, that is discrimination, Einstein.
/r/MGTOW228/07/21 11:49 AM
6

It’s literally in the Civil Rights act that’s discrimination based on marital status is illegal
/r/MGTOW228/07/21 11:45 AM
1

Different sects, different beliefs. Orthodox probably go the whole nine yards, reform Jews only a nick.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 06:25 PM
-3

Because it’s a relatively harmless cosmetic change? It’s not murder? Now you’re getting into dangerous territory where you are trying to tell people what they can and can’t do with their beliefs. That’s fucked up. There’s a reason religious practices are exempt from many laws.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 06:23 PM
1

what a toxic attitude
/r/MensRights20/05/21 09:24 AM
-1

Suggesting the practice is being spread because of Jewish/Muslim custom is absolutely asinine and racist. Not every doctor is Jewish/Muslim and even those that are won't recommend that babies be circumcised simply because they want to spread their religious custom. That's conspiracy theory. That's racism. Thinking Jews are cutting kid's dicks because they want to spread Jewish custom, even to non-Jews is racist. Let alone, very much wrong.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 08:38 AM
2

It's not. It's significant to your family, and then it's significant to you later in your life. Thats like saying "Why celebrate a baby's first birthday with a cake and balloons when they don't even know what a celebration is?" It's not actually meant to make the baby happy, its a ceremonial tradition.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 08:22 AM
6

Hey, if you can convince Judaism as a whole that the practice should be abolished, I'm on board.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 08:19 AM
-1

I'm not even debating circumcision here. I asking why the fuck you are blaming Jews for...whatever you are even trying to say.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 08:00 AM
-4

Well, that would be a catch-22, because a brit milah is required to be performed precisely 8 days after birth. Waiting until someone is old enough to decide makes the decision moot. At that point it's too late and doing it then would have no religious significance.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 07:18 AM
5

mocking someone's scars?
/r/MensRights20/05/21 05:57 AM
4

"those surgical scars really give it a lot of character."
/r/MensRights20/05/21 05:50 AM
-3

Are you Jewish and saying you wish the practice wasn't implemented? Or are you saying Jews conspired to circumcise the entire world? Because that would be racist as fuck. Edit: I'm being downvoted for pointing out an extremely Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? I didnt realize the people on this sub hated Jews this much.
/r/MensRights20/05/21 05:45 AM
8

I realize you are probably looking for anti-circumcision statements, but to help show the complete topic, you will probably need to offer some countering views, so heres one: I'm Jewish, so for me, it's an important religious custom. I don't think it should be allowed for non-religious or non-medical reasons though. It's purely cosmetic, and serves no benefit; therefore it doesn't need to be done. However, I'm not as outraged that it occurs as some people are. The magnitude of the change between…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 05:40 AM
2

That’s the one, thanks. Although I’ve heard of cases where people never considered themselves married but the courts did.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/21 06:41 PM
2

That’s the one, thanks
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/21 06:41 PM
5

Unfortunately in a lot of places you don’t have to be married for the courts to consider you as such. I can’t recall the legal term but if you are in a relationship for a number of years and living together, sharing resources etc, as if you were married in all but name, then it is legally a de facto civil union. 7 years in this case is well over the established requirement for courts to consider this, and I can see why the ex gf went to see if she was entitled to it. Not that she deserves it, bu…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/21 05:36 PM
10

this was way too far down, needs to be pinned to the top.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:20 PM
4

in terms of psychologists though, its not an unreasonable question. In the US, private solo practices are far more common than group practices, be it private or public.
/r/MensRights25/01/21 10:08 PM
9

yeah come on guys its not like its her JOB or anything.... ​ /s
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/20 06:31 AM
95

You could also ask: If it's a multi-stall bathroom, why is there a slide lock to begin with?
/r/MensRights08/12/18 06:44 AM
5

so female Tiger woods?
/r/MensRights19/09/18 12:54 AM
1

Wtf? I never said I only wanted one side of the story told. I said that the same news outlet purposefully putting out opinion pieces of both extremes of an issue is more about generating traffic than about actual journalism / supporting free speech. If they didn’t intend for both writers to voice their opinions then it’s fine, but my guess is they expected them to do this from the moment when they hired the writers. I don’t think a news outlet should be purposefully playing both sides of the iss…
/r/MensRights29/08/18 06:04 PM
4

Having multiple writers with differing experiences, perspectives and opinions is good, unbiased and encourages free thinking. ​ Hiring multiple writers with explicitly opposite views with the intent that both extremes of an issue are expressed is inherently deceitful, insincere and unethical of a news outlet. Very clear they are trying to cater to both sides and garner the most clicks and views that way.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 08:21 AM
2

I wasn't saying he got away with rape, I was saying he used his "bright future" as an argument for leniency in sentencing.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/04/18 03:49 AM
2

to be fair the swimmer from stanford totally got away with this shit too
/r/PussyPassDenied22/04/18 06:55 PM
1

you still can't physically assault someone, even if it is in order to remove them from your car. Castle doctrine (home defense law) does not apply to vehicles.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/18 07:34 AM
2

don't bother brigading the editor of cosmo, they couldn't care less since their readers are all women. Go after their owner, Hearst. Going to the big man (keyword: man) usually gets the job done.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:32 AM
5

Robespierre learned that the hard way
/r/PussyPassDenied09/12/17 04:22 PM
32

and people wonder why there are rarely male elementary school teachers these days. its a crime for an adult man to even look at children.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/12/17 04:07 PM
49

more like "he might have flirted with me, I can't be sure but I didn't consent to being flirted with so therefore I was raped"
/r/PussyPassDenied17/11/17 10:41 PM
1

I do truly believe that for one reason: I've heard of countless people over the course of the last two years who were democrats/liberals and have since become conservative, or at least, seen the hypocrisy of the left. (example and example) The phenomenon of people being "red-pilled" has become a literal meme, it has been so rampant. The segment of people who actually were able to think rationally saw the flaws of those they were associating with, and chose not to do so anymore. On the other hand…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 04:32 AM
5

I've come to the conclusion that is impossible to try and rationalize the way feminists/BLM/liberals in general think, because if they actually thought rationally, they wouldn't support those movements.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/17 02:53 AM
0

its stoner, not stork
/r/PussyPassDenied11/10/17 02:22 AM
2

you know... that explains why some of the people on the show seem to know exactly what the outcome is going to be, doing as little as possible to plead and defend their case, and give no shits about the negative outcome. Never realized until now that the two sides could be in on it together.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/17 05:50 AM
11

And they wonder why women don't go into STEM fields
/r/PussyPassDenied09/03/17 09:53 AM
0

Tbh I have zero knowledge about wrestling so if what you say is true, then I can see where I am wrong. To the ignorant eye (me), it looks like a potentially dangerous move but I can see maybe the guy was a former high school/college wrestler and used his experience accordingly.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 03:38 PM
2

I know what I wrote, but I didn't mean it literally. You're the one making me seem like I meant it literally. Ok, heres a better 911 scenario, alright? "911, whats your emergency?" "My ex girlfriend is on my property without my permission and tried to assault me." "Are you injured?" "No." "Is she injured?" "No. We didn't fight." "Are you outside or inside?" "Inside." "Ok, do not go outside. We are sending an officer." This is the optimal scenario for you, for her, and for the police. Instead of …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 11:54 AM
2

thanks mate :)
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 11:44 AM
1

I agree that she got what she deserved. But giving what she deserved isn't always the right thing to do.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 11:44 AM
2

Jesus, I'm not saying to literally run in your house and lock your doors immediately at the sign of trouble. Confront them, but if the situation appears to be escalating, do your best to back away and then inform them you're going to call the police if they don't cease. If they don't let you retreat, then defend yourself, obviously. My point is that the best option is not to get involved in a conflict. Only use defense as a last resort. Let the police do their job, don't put yourself at risk for…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 11:03 AM
1

You're right, but the fact that for men and women of equal weight, men have far more muscle mass, the reverse analogy needed a bit more of a gap between the two's physical ability. If the roles were reversed (the current guy being the current girl's weight and the current girl being the current guy's weight), the guy would still be far more physically capable than the girl. So thats why I made the analogy a bit of a stretch, to demonstrate the women's proposed superior power over the male's, jus…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:54 AM
2

Cops/lawyers would be the first to tell you it's the right decision to avoid conflicts like I am saying. If you even touch someone you can be held liable and prone to assault charges. The way I see it, best to not even take the chance at something like that happening. Lose respect from peers? Nope, they see how wise you are for not getting involved in petty conflicts which can quickly get out of hand, ugly and potentially life ruining, like this exact video. They respect you more for being able …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:45 AM
0

Lock the doors and call the police. Any damages to your property, you get to sue them.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:33 AM
1

I get what you're saying and I agree. But at the same time there are situations where you definitely do know the upper limit so to speak of force required and I think this was one of them. Like I've said in other responses, its not like she was choking him, hand on throat type of attack. If that was the case, I'd agree with you completely but I don't think he can completely excuse himself from the use of force due to panic
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:31 AM
1

Again, thanks for your opinion, so worthwhile.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:28 AM
6

thanks for your opinion.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:28 AM
3

Anyone who can confidently deescalate a situation has the obligation to do so, gender regardless.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:28 AM
-1

gonna be honest your post is way too tl;dr for me. Overall I think I get the jist of what you are saying and I agree, I just think in today's society its a lose-lose situation, no matter what you do will end negatively for you. The best option is to avoid the conflict entirely.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:26 AM
0

its really a question of whether or not you believe in a more pacifist approach to conflicts or not. Some people think its ok to do anything to defend yourself, pacifists would say only use enough force as necessary. I wouldn't exactly call myself a pacifist overall, but I guess I agree with their sentiment regarding this area.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:22 AM
0

Very true. Afterwards, he tried walking away and getting away from the other attacker. If this was /r/CMV you'd get a delta
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:19 AM
6

She clearly got what she deserved, I only thought the force used was a little excessive. All I was saying.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:18 AM
2

If the guy was a weak-ass scrawny dude and the girl was a buff body builder, and she pulled the same move, I'd be the same level of upset. I don't like people taking advantage of others weakness.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:17 AM
2

Like I said, its a gray area. I'm not advocating for "vagina's get better treatment" I'm talking about anyone in general who doesn't pose a threat to harm you.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:15 AM
2

She didn't try to kick his testicles, if she did, she would have swung upwards with her foot, rather she bent her knee inward, raised her leg and extended her foot towards his sternum. He pulled the same move on her right after.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:14 AM
-1

I've repeatedly said this to others, it has nothing to do with their gender, its the fact that they happen to be a weaker opponent and not physically able to pose a threat. Some women are stronger, some women aren't. Some men are weak too. Anyone who doesn't threaten your life shouldn't be met with a reaction that might cause death
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:13 AM
-4

so a man should use less force on a women weaker opponent
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 10:11 AM
6

I always thought /r/pussypassdenied was about girls trying to exploit their gender and getting called out for it. Like, if a woman gets pulled over by a cop and starts crying but gets a ticket anyway. PPD. I guess now it's about women who get punched in the face.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 09:06 AM
2

I guess that answers things.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 09:02 AM
2

are you a psychic?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:57 AM
4

Literally, thats all I was trying to say. Why did I get downvoted for that?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:57 AM
5

If you see what I responded to others, I understand the idea of self-defense perfectly. I'm not arguing that. The question is was he in the right to use excessive force like that. Most states have a statue about Castle Doctrine, or home defense, which allows you to take any means necessary against an intruder, even lethal. But that was intended for burglars, robbers, kidnappers, etc. not angry ex girlfriends in your driveway. If the mailman in on your porch and you shoot him because he looks "su…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:55 AM
5

Yes, like I said, legally, it was a clear case of self defense. I'm not arguing that. Read what I wrote. I'm talking about the moral implications. She started the confrontation because she didn't think he would fight back. Obviously she was wrong, or even if she did, I don't think she expected to be slammed to the ground. I'm not implying all women are weak, only the one in this case. Contextually, each case is different. If a strong women is attacking a man, then match her with necessary force.…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:49 AM
0

I'm not in the Air Force.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:45 AM
2

thank you!
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:34 AM
6

"two things being true at the same time" thing one - girl is a bitch thing two - dude was too rough both are true
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:32 AM
1

I'm not disagreeing with the legal implications here. Its an obvious case of self defense, he was not the aggressor and she was on his property. No question. Just asking, morally, is it right to use excessive force on a weaker opponent, male or female. She wasn't threatening his life or doing any serious harm. What he did could have seriously injured her.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:32 AM
-1

Mate, I'm the farthest thing from a white knight. But being overly rough with a weak girl is the same in my eyes as a bully beating up on a nerd or an older brother beating up on a younger brother. gender here is irrelevant to me.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:30 AM
-22

I understand that nobody can perfectly analyze the situation and make perfect decision in a split second, tense and stressful situation. obviously if you are defending yourself, your first and foremost priority and responsibility is to do just that, no matter what it requires. But this wasn't a life and death situation, the guy was getting bitch slapped by a weak girl, hardly feeling a thing. Its not like she had her hands around his throat, choking him. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, the slam was …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:28 AM
0

So you agree with me?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 07:37 AM
1

...how?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 07:29 AM
-32

Seriously. I'm getting downvoted, tell me in all seriousness that the guy couldn't have handled the situation any better than he did. EDIT: ok peeps, just keep downvoting me, don't actually reply to my comment thanks. fuck reddit.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 07:09 AM
-52

Believe me, I'm all for bitches getting their PPD, but the dude went over the top here. No need to slam her into the ground. He clearly had her arms controlled and could have deescalated the situation easily by spinning her around and locking her arms across her chest. I'm not sure what was going on with her having a "seizure" at the end, maybe she faked it, idk but I do know that the back of her neck had a lot of force exerted on it when she got slammed to the ground. Even though her head didn'…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 06:21 AM
19

not gonna lie, if I didnt see the 'verified' tick next to her channel name and the view counter, I would have thought it was some garbage music video a 16 year old wannabe Rebecca Black came up with.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/10/16 08:06 AM
13

that was wild from start to finish.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/10/16 05:43 AM
15

Nearly a hundred miles per hour, and he was kind enough to vouch for me in front of the judge. .....explain.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/10/16 06:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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