TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BarryOgg Archive

View 2 posts and 163 comments by BarryOgg 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)
3

Ozymandias Wait. Ozymandias, as in Ozy Frantz? Huh. I remember reading WATM and I've only just discovered Slate Star Codex this year, and from that I've discovered their new blog. It's a small internet.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 11:32 AM
-1

The last time in this thread, yes. Other than that, I'll try to be as annoying as possible whenever DM is linked here. Because this leads to situations in which I'm arguing with someone, re-check my sources, find out I got one piece of info from DM, and then my opponent gets an auto-win and I get egg on my face.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 04:09 PM
-1

Because I'm not gonna click on Daily Mail website, and OP didn't provide mirror.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 04:03 PM
-2

Now show me the source that isn't Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 03:37 PM
1

That one is basically because they realized that movie-Fury is now better known than 616-comic-Fury, so by the power of marketing continuity-defying bullshit, we now have son of Fury, in 616, who looks like SLJ.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 09:43 AM
4

For what it's worth, Wil admitted he was misled and the survey was manipulated (thanks /u/wil!).
/r/MensRights16/04/14 01:01 PM
0

This seems kind of cheesy.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 05:05 PM
6

What is apex fallacy?
/r/MensRights21/12/13 03:11 PM
0

Sorry for sounding callous, but it's not a very huge issue, it's not a huge issue, and for staggering majority of the population it's not even an issue at all, because they won't have such a person within their social circle. (Generously overestimating trans* people as 1 in 10000, you'd get between 1% and 2.5% probability depending on your pick of Dunbar's Number. In reality it'd probably be less because minorities are not evenly distributed among social circles but form their own cliques.)
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:10 AM
3

/r/TumblrInAction
/r/MensRights22/02/13 12:21 AM
0

One does not need to be a troll to dislike AVfM.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:00 AM
1

ITT people who cannot into sarcasm.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:06 PM
2

What would be the motivation for getting work, if one can do nothing and still have a "good" life?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:54 AM
-1

Eh. We have a name for that: Catch-22.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 12:31 PM
6

Abortion is not contraception ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:20 AM
1

Approximately 4% of people are sociopaths. This makes them, on average, more capable of climbing in social hierarchy in any system because they are unfettered by compassion and similar things, and they enjoy having power more. Every system, or at least every sensible one, has some safeguards in place to protect its citizens and itself from the people abusing it. Every system deteriorates over time. Some need decades, some need merely moths to turn into a degenerate form. Times of social turmoil …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:44 PM
3

OK how about this: I cannot see any reasonable way our society could gradually shift to a classless one. I also cannot see any way in which such shift occurring on a short period of time (i.e. revolution) would not lead, as it always does, to consolidating power in hands of a group of murderous psychopaths. I'm sure there are people out there who dream of revolution, but I am somehow not willing to take a risk of me and my family being dragged out on the street and shot for being ideologically i…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:55 PM
14

Yes, because there totally aren't people who claim you need to be a vegan to be a True Feminist.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 12:07 PM
1

Well, I have the bonus of being Polish and therefore knowing where to look in the local parts of the internet. Also, holy 4-months-old-thread necromancy, Batman!
/r/MensRights14/09/12 07:29 PM
2

This is a bit strawman-ish: the table creator pretends that all people with anti-abortion views also hold every related conservative view.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:55 AM
4

Many of the popular subreddits have separate accompanying ones for image macros/ rage comics/ tangentially related image posts/ general circlejerk purposes. This subreddit is doing great in limiting points 1 and 2 (I haven't seen a rage comic on the front page in months), does ok with the 4th (there are some loaded circlejerky questions in here from time to time), but has a bit of a problem with point 3. So yeah, I think it would be a nice change.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 01:44 PM
2

That's actually a good point. Reading about those eventually led me to this place :>
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:12 AM
1

Please go on pretending a woman would make this statement. Um, OP is woman, judging from a glance at the last half year worth of posts.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:40 PM
6

And I've yet to meet one that can outsmart the boolet.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:12 AM
2

Satire, you say? (Yea, I know it was, but it was poor satire).
/r/MensRights18/07/12 03:54 PM
11

As I've said the last time it was posted, it's phrased a bit unfortunately. Missing a "can" or "too" somewhere.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 07:24 PM
3

For what it's worth, she seems to accept different views in the comments, which is a nice change of pace from the usual.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 07:36 PM
1

I'd love to be able to read that internal piece.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:17 PM
1

Except when it gets most of the facts wrong, that is 3/4th of the time.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 10:03 AM
1

Well, I assume you are familiar with the term "troll" in general internet context. This particular specimen can be associated with r/ShitRedditSays subreddit and it's network of subreddits, one of which is /r/neckbeardrights , which, as you can probably guess, is a parody of this one, carrying the implication that all MRAs are <insert desired derogatory decriptor here> neckbeards. I've heard that the official Party line of SRS has disapproved of the slur "neckbeard" recently, but I'm not sure. A…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:48 PM
5

For fuck's sake, r/mr. This is a SRS troll (guess what does the "NB" stand for? That's right, neckbeard). And it's at +18, just because it mockingly wrote something that sides with your view. Fucking herd mentality.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:51 AM
4

For those without technical background: in the above post, "iff" means "if and only if" (<=>).
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:52 PM
11

As I recall, the usual reasoning goes like this: The Patriarchydundundunnn enforces gender roles and stereotypes, one of those stereotypes being "women are better at nurturing and caring", which results in bias in family courts.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:10 PM
23

Ahem. Having gone to a women's college, this was a matter of discussion during the first hall meeting of the year. For each floor that had two bathrooms, one had to be gender neutral while the other one could be set aside for 'women only'. When there is a massive overrepresentation of one gender, I don't see anything wrong with this setup.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 01:56 PM
31

A bit of a false alarm: the ones I checked aren't deleted, merely not created (yet?), as there's nothing in page history or deletion log.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 01:41 PM
0

Tumblr I think I identified the root of the problem.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:15 AM
4

You are insulting the greatest movie ever made, Scott Pilgrim vs the World. Now it's personal.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 02:14 AM
1

If possible, have a lady friend who shares your views to accompany you and support you in the discussion. It makes you immune to some of the chapest shots your adversaries could make ("you just hate women" etc.).
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:39 PM
1

Can't say I'm surprised, it seemed like a (too) perfect storm.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:19 PM
2

Are/were you a frequent commenter at Roissy? Because I think I remember your quite peculiar nickname.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 11:22 PM
2

I vaguely remember a study saying that people of both genders semi-instinctively seek and form most stable relationships with partners on a attractiveness level comparable to theirs. I'll try to find it when I'm on a pc and not a phone.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:48 AM
1

toddmra88 Redditor since:2012-05-16 (0 days) toddmra88 88 That's it. OP's literally Hitler. ..on a more serious note, though, these troll battles are becoming too meta. Trolls trolling trolls...
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:03 AM
1

A moose's bite can be really dangerous.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:11 PM
1

Fun fact: this bot's author is everyone's favourite person, AyloshaV!
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:09 PM
2

Archangelle agreeing with majority's assessment on a thread in /mr. Must be opposite day ;)
/r/MensRights04/05/12 11:21 PM
8

This is treading dangerously close to how we are parodied, so I think it's worth noting: nonwhite men are having it even worse.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:22 AM
-1

Gee, it's only the third time this has been posted here in the last month.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 11:47 PM
147

To elaborate on what I've said in the previous thread about this: I can't find any dentist in Wrocław named Anna Maćkowiak All the English sources seem to cite same article The day it was posted, there were no Polish news about this Right now, there are two Polish news pieces, both of them from tabloids Both of them only cite English sources, proving absolutely no further information To conclude: this never happened. If you can prove otherwise, I'll buy you any <10$ game of your choice on Steam.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 03:35 PM
-1

Since I can't find any info about a dentist named Anna Maćkowiak in Wrocław, I'm inclined to call BS. Still, the comments are predictably depressing.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:44 PM
1

FYI, THIS IS ANOTHER POST FROM THE "INEEDHELP1234" TROLL. OR AT LEAST HE CLAIMS SO.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:46 AM
5

This is the biggest forever alone circlejerk I've ever seen. I expect to be downvoted, but I hope I get across to one of you at least. You hope you get what across? Ad hominems?
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:54 PM
-1

Yea, your blur mades it possible to guess the name, the first one I tried took me to her profile, the photo is actually public for everyone, goddamit some people cannot into internet ಠ_ಠ But still, even though she has screwed up privacy settings, you should delete this.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:07 PM
2

Reminder: we have a meta subreddit now. This should probably have been posted there.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 03:40 PM
2

Please point out the point at which the discussion was derailed.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 03:12 PM
8

Ah, I see you've adopted Jeremiah's definition:"trolling- writing something I don't agree with".
/r/MensRights13/03/12 12:36 AM
1

Not arguing most of the points, but 2 cents: This first argument comes from a false understanding, and makes and equivalency that cannot logically follow, from the fact that child abandonment laws forbid a mother, and a father, from abandoning their children. These laws are not gender specific, and they encapsulate the same "financial abandonment" that you have argued for. I am unfamiliar with US law, but isn't there a "safe haven" law in some of the states, depenalizing such behavior? How would…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:46 PM
3

Actually, I don't hold AVfM in high regard, pretty much because of the shit like this, and Alanna asked about SAVE. Truth be told, I'm almost fine with AVfM being on the list, as Elam and some writers there apparently can't keep themselves from having slur-filled ego trips, which add nothing to the message and only make it easier to subvert it, as shown in Fig. 1.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:01 PM
3

Got any links on this? Seems interesting.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:22 AM
2

In addition to what Alanna said, there's a little something called burden of proof...
/r/MensRights10/03/12 01:55 AM
2

Which is a personal opinion of a person who ceased all internet activity a few months ago and which in no way shaped his moderation policy when he was active.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 01:46 AM
1

Also I upvote the fuck out of misgynistic horrors so as to expose them to more people and hopefully make people think, that's the only way this stuff is going to get beaten. A bunch of dudes at +2 get their shit reinforced, whereas if they get upvoted there's a chance for scrutiny and growth. That seems unneccessarily convoluted at best. At worst, well, if you're not a part of the solution...
/r/MensRights10/03/12 12:27 AM
33

Advice animals? Really?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 01:27 AM
3

By the way, it makes a nice counterpoint to everyone who's saying this post shouldn't be near the top: it actually spawned an interesting discussion, and several people are now more aware of the subject, thanks to the linked studies. And knowing is half the battle!
/r/MensRights07/03/12 03:24 PM
13

Actually, there may be more to it... TL;DR Both genders are nearly just as likely to say yes, provided that they can reasonably expect to get pleasure from the encounter. And since women orgasm only ~35% of the time with the first-time partner...
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:45 PM
6

While I can appreciate the sentiment, the second similar thread in 24 hours may result in a slight backlash, as there's an abundance of guys here who equate tone argument, and basically anything different that their views, with trolling.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 06:34 PM
3

You are also incapable of maintaining a discussion without resorting to petty namecalling, make unsubstantiated claims like "99,9% of progress throughout world's history was made by men". Your singular endressly reiterated claim is that your particular brand or activism is the only "true" one, and everyone who disagrees in the slightest is a troll. You also chose to set up this another account with "MRA", effectively brandishing to whatever another reddit you post "this is whan a MRA looks like"…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 11:12 AM
1

Or is this going to become standard protocol to prevent someone from trolling and then changing to "show everyone how hateful MR is"? Basically, yes.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 11:11 AM
4

Please, by all means tell me more about this SRS, about which, despite being subscribed to r/mr since my first day on reddit, I have no knowledge whatsoever. Prompted by you, I checked her comment history, and yup, she posts there. Amazingly enough, this doesn't retroactively invalidate the substantial posts that I remember. And amazingly enough, her posts there also make sense and not follow suit of the usual srs circlejerk gibberish. And while I may wonder about the state of person who willing…
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:31 AM
1

Wrong. I remember her posting here months ago, with reasonable content. Try to overreact less.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:04 AM
2

A note for everyone: this is posted by Gabirelle, not Gabrielle. Redditor for 1 day Make of that what you will.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 04:40 PM
1

(this is pure speculation on my part, I have no idea if STDs are a significant problem in sex work when legalized and regulated) Judging from AMAs that pop up from time to time, they are usually very strict about protection and regular testing, so that it's almost a non-issue.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 02:07 AM
0

Actually, "Archangelle$NAME" characters are edit:usually SRS moderators. While I'd appreciate not diluting this subreddit with meta issues, this is in no way an official statement. tl;dr I was wrong
/r/MensRights22/02/12 12:36 PM
2

Please, try to use more paragraphs and less strem-of-counsciousness style of writing, it's really easier to read that way.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 02:22 PM
10

Just ignore Jeremiah, he's calling everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest a troll. Please don't get discouraged by him, we need more voices of dissent.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 11:59 PM
3

Well, you sure know a thing or two about having multiple accounts, don't you, ThingsAreBad?
/r/MensRights20/02/12 11:56 PM
1

I think the "I would support you if you changed your mission statement etc." line of reasoning would work better than "I wont support you because of your mission statement". Basic psychology - positive attitudes elicit positive responses.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 01:04 AM
4

See, this is the kind of sentiment I don't understand. Do you really want the mods to be trigger happy and ban all dissent? Quality of opinions is improved by challenging them.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 11:12 PM
3

Have you considered not drowning a few valid points in a sea of ad hominem. I know, I know, your point isn't to be rational, the point is to rile up the opponent and then claim moral superiority, but still...
/r/MensRights17/02/12 04:39 PM
2

Problem? Communism and socialism are good things. Heck even for you. Hell, up in the thread you made some sense, especially in comparison to thingsarebad. As a citizen of ex-communist country: please don't make absolute statements about things you have only theoretical relation to, mkay?
/r/MensRights14/02/12 02:34 PM
-1

I mean, why is NiceGuysSTFU still not banned? I'd venture a guess that's because most of his posts make more sense than most of yours.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 02:15 PM
2

You haven't been here long, have you? Since I've created my account, or a few days earlier, actually. There is a small, but vocal minority of people whose sole purpose in life appears to be to come in here and insult us. I'm not talking about people who come in here to argue. I'm not even talking about people who come in to argue and make groundless accusations. I'm talking about people who just chant gutter insults, over and over. From the top of my head: various incarnations of HumanTornado, B…
/r/MensRights14/02/12 01:01 PM
2

You still havent provided a definition of trolling that covers him. I appreciate the ad hominem, though.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 01:10 AM
2

Ad. 1: Define troll, becuse we seem to have different definiton, and yours seems to be "anyone whose opinion I don't agree with". Ad. 2: "Therefore"? You've just proven what I've written above: that you vote not because of the actual content of the post, but because of the author. But please, of course, explain me in what way the sentence "No problems here." is trolling?
/r/MensRights14/02/12 12:26 AM
1

Ahem. Please allow me to use this post as an example. This post, albeit brief, is on topic. It is also at -16 now, with 5/6 of karma being negative, based not on it's actual content but on the author. /R/mensrights, this is why we can't have nice things As I've said before, I may not agree with NiceGuysSTFU on overything, or perhaps on many points in fact, but **we need voices of dissent, lest this subreddit become even bigger circlejerk. Because it sure is circlejerky in here, with top posts be…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 11:12 PM
1

Well, doesn't it work by increasing delay between allowed posts if one keeps getting downvoted in a subreddit?
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:06 PM
5

No, but really: there are people on both sides who are too dense to make meaningful communication viable. You are not one of those people. I absolutely cannot fathom why would you do this, sabotaging attempts for finding some understanding and common goals between opposing worldviews. Or do you believe we have none? I don't think so.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:05 PM
5

Hi, do you remember me? If yes, could you explain why do you do this? Seriously, I thought better of you. I cannot describe how much it saddens me to see you stoop so low. Please, for the sake of my sanity, explain what are you trying to achieve by this.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:40 PM
8

They're both. And neither. If you try to engage in serious discussion, they mock you for taking them seriously. If you reply with counter-sarcasm, they get all high and mighty, and of course they were serious all along. The only winnig move is not to play.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 02:54 PM
10

The reasoning for this is that if they get banned, they'd just create a new account, but if they keep getting downvoted, evetually they get caught in a spam filter more and more.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 01:20 PM
2

There you go. Edit: Wow. TIL that RES has expand image button for dA links, even if they link to page and not the image. Sweet.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 02:01 PM
5

Well, if it's a link to a media piece, its usually verifiable, and if it's a self post one can pull the thread and request more details, and also compre to poster's history to decide if it's made up or not. Presenting hypothetical scenarios and then acting as if they were real is pretty much the definition of straw man.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 01:58 PM
7

Somehow, I've got this vague idea that the story may be exagerrated for effect, of even not true at all as it comes from fucking 4chan. Do you really have such a drought of actual verifiable cases that you have to rely on imageboard stories?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 01:39 PM
27

Oh for effs sake, FAKE, does nobody here read Snopes? I'll find it and edit in a moment. There you have it.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 03:54 AM
6

Consider this step 1. Step 2 would be linking to this thread every time the lnk is posted with "since you can't be bothered to do anything more than spam, STFU & GTFO".
/r/MensRights11/01/12 06:10 PM
6

Since other posters were eager to point out the speck in wiki admins' eye, let me mentioun the plank in ours: the people that are most likely to post edit from MRM's point of view make for poor edits. Are admins biased? Parhaps, but you're making it too easy for them, writing emotionally charged and citation-lacking articles. If you want your edit/article to last, you have to go the distance and make it look professional.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 04:00 PM
10

No, the point of that comment was: elaborate. If you criticize something, provide some basis for your criticism, and not just eyes of disapproval.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 05:05 PM
1

Here's a funny thought: maybe I'm giving Ignatius_loyola too much credit and he isn't devious like that, but I think the primary target of LGBT awareness month some time ago (logo change, etc.) wasn't actually to raise the awareness or anything like that. It was to drive away the worst of the trolls offenders (I prefer to not call them trolls because they weren't trying to stir shit just for the sake of it, they were just assholes), who took offense at /r/mr for supporting LGBT issues, evean if …
/r/MensRights03/01/12 02:36 PM
2

From what I gather, there's vocal complaining minority here, and lukewarm majority.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:45 PM
4

NSFW, NSFL
/r/MensRights14/12/11 04:29 PM
2

Could you provide links to the study and/or its debunking?
/r/MensRights24/10/11 08:50 AM
1

By default text between two underscores gets italicized (like this), you have to use backslashes (_see_?), i.e. \_example\_. Also, use \\ to get a single one in text, in case you're wondering ;]
/r/MensRights19/10/11 10:31 AM
1

Yup, that's his reddit account.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:13 PM
5

I see what you did there, and I would reprimand you for this, if I wasn't so amused by it.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:25 PM
2

Have you considered switching to your main account (as I'm sure you have one) when you post things that make sense? It's disheartening, upvoting this one.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:18 PM
1

I guess I phrased it badly. I also tend to use layman's definiton rather that academical one, and I think using the first one my statement could be defended. But splitting hairs aside, the important part is that we need to have girls going up to boys' level of confidence, and not the other way around. Do we have an agreement on that?
/r/MensRights06/10/11 01:46 PM
2

You know, I have issues with the term. The choice of the name "Nice Guy (TM) is poor; someone who doesn't have inside knowledge is likely to mistake it for the uncapitalized, sans-trademark version. It's even worse for the reader if he considers himelf one (uncapitalized nice guy, that is). I remember it was quite depressing reading comments for xkcd comic 'Friends' (I have crap internet now, may link later), almost universally condemning its protagonist. I now realize I wasn't that guy, as I ne…
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:59 PM
4

In theory, yes. In practice, it's often another all-purpose term used to dismiss opposing views with minimum effort. Also, the definition (and the term itself) shouldn't be gendered. Yes, men are more prone to such behaviour, due to differences in upbringing etc., but I wouldn't use it as an example of male privilage, but rather lack of female one, i.e. we heed to teach girls from early age to be more confident, not teach boys to be less confident. This is not the situation where 'meeting halfwa…
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:25 PM
3

That sudden feeling of unease when notorious troll says something semi-insightful.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 07:19 PM
3

I think this is the best take on this subject I've seen.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:43 AM
1

For what it's worth, the introductory post at Rise of the Zeta Male states that the are no longer cooperating with NSWATM. Also, it not like anyone can subscribe to only one subreddit at a given time, personally I'm cautiosly optimistic, hoping that the new one can shape it's own identity, instead of becoming, basically, r/mr prime.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 09:50 PM
1

Still, the response to this is mostly positive. It's not exactly the same sentiment, but if you add the word 'potential' to OP's picture, it pretty much is.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 05:28 PM
4

some I would hardly qualify 90+% as 'some'. Edit: also, this. It has sources and citations at the bottom.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:46 PM
8

You had me until the last sentence, last word actually. Sometimes what you see as strengthening the message actually weakens it.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:38 PM
2

You are a rude, vulgar ass*ole Pot, meet kettle.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:03 PM
2

I'm sorry, but this seems an awful lot like dodging the question. I'd actually give you the benefit of doubt, as you surely are annoyed after what from your perspective seems like talking to a wall, but then again, you somehow didn't mind to reply to some much more ignorant posts above.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 01:15 PM
1

What makes you think it's obliviousness? Hanlon's razor will only get you so far.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 09:13 AM
2

FWIW, I remember shakesville complaining about one of those.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 08:39 PM
3

But EU is making many laws behind closed doors, not just gender-related ones (see the ACTA example i mentioned in OP), so they're not really getting special treatment, this is par for the course for European Parliament :/
/r/MensRights08/09/11 11:43 AM
6

I started forming a reply in my head, but then I realized that second and third panel of this will suffice.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 02:00 AM
6

I love it how you keep using 'conspiracy theory', and yet the only instance of the word 'conspiracy' I've seen for the last 3 moths in this subreddit is in the sidebar, and that one is a personal opinion of kloo2yoo.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 10:42 PM
2

Seconded.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:49 PM
1

Fair enough, sorry for sounding aggresive. I just recall a thread from a few weeks ago, similar to this one in a way, that is striking many common sensibilities of members of this subreddit at once. That one, however, was in fact a trolling attemp and succeeded, in that some of the replies were cringe-worthy. This one however has rather sound andvice, so I apologize once again.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:47 PM
2

I it just me, or does this strike a bit too many chords? Redditor for 0 days...
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:37 PM
8

Yes, but it's nothing that hasn't been discussed to death here. There is absolutely no need to validate those subreddits by posting about them again. The less is said of them, the better.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:34 AM
7

We don't need yet another thread about those. No they don't. You can disable custom css, and presto!
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:07 AM
8

So... it was created because its founder considers skobrin, dbzero etc. anti-feminist? ... You know what? Screw it, there's no way in hell that I'm witty enough to make a comment that could possibly top this.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 01:11 AM
7

Ahem, I know the difference between the terms, so thanks for explaining, but that wasn't neccesary. You confirmed my suspicions, though, that you seem to be overthinking this and splitting hairs, especially when you say She stated that her "gender" was "woman". She clearly is referring to her biological sex She said she is a woman, which is slightly different from your phrasing, but defferent enough to make it a bit more general statement. I still don't see why would the word 'woman' be restrict…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 07:51 PM
3

How exactly is what she wrote confusing the two? Honest question.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 05:37 PM
7

No. Not cool, not welcome here. This is the kind of shit that makes /amr sound legitimate.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:14 PM
5

For a person being allegedly all about credibility and good discussion, you sure seem to make a lot of baseless assumptions.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 01:41 PM
2

Care to elaborate? I believe he meant that this subreddit is more about being oriented to specific causes, rather than general overreaching ideology.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:27 PM
2

Care to elaborate? I believe he meant that this subreddit is more about being oriented to specific causes, rather than general overreaching ideology.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:20 PM
3

Ahem. 7 days, -700 points. Guys, look at karma before replying. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights22/08/11 07:45 PM
3

Aah, a Pascal programmer, I suppose?
/r/MensRights22/08/11 09:34 AM
5

TIL that Demonspawn is the whole subreddit.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 11:39 PM
4

Person 1 has sex with Person 2 even though Person 2 is too drunk to consent. Let's try to analyze this a bit. Person A, the poster, had sex with the girl (B) whose actions at the moment were interpreted by him as consent. You say that this is irrelevant, as she was unable to give consent. From what i gather, your argument is twofold. B couldn't have given consent either because: a) she (implied by her pursuing legal action) decided after sobering up that she wouldn't do this if she weren't drunk…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:41 PM
1

Um, context please? Anyone can put caption on a picture.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:39 PM
1

I'll admit I kind of lost when it comes to determining your agenda, because so far it seems like it's 'pointing out assholes while beeing as much of an asshole as I possibly can myself'.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 11:18 AM
2

From what I saw, the outrage stemmed not directly from the concern that someone might get triggered, but from the fact that his username put the word in humorous context, trivializes, etc etc you know the usual schtick. The comment itself was, IIRC, that table flipping emoticon. I'm too much of a lazy ass to browse for it and check. As for the triggering, to be honest I have no idea. Perhaps in most severe cases. But I don't think so: if it was the case, most of the trigger warnings feminists pu…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 12:54 AM
3

That shitstorm isn't about the comic, it's about some account named I_RAPE_PEOPLE
/r/MensRights13/08/11 12:26 AM
4

I check the other thread: mractivist2 is throwing tantrums, HPLovecraft is more or less reasonable. I look on this one: HPLovecraft is throwing tantrums, mractivist2 is more or less reasonable. MINDFUCK
/r/MensRights13/08/11 12:25 AM
5

Retort to this I've seen somewhere on soup.io: ""I followed every point on this and was raped anyway, SHITTY LIST WOULDN'T RECOMMEND."
/r/MensRights03/08/11 09:10 AM
4

The problem I have with the term is that it has two meanings: the academical one, which is similar to what you posted, and the layperson one, which is more or less "rule of men". Whihch is not a problem in itself, but it becomes one when some people start using them interchangeably, to make the discussion less clear and skew it in their favor. Whixh I believe is often the case in... other subreddit. You know which one. Also, what 3 or 4 people already said: if it shifts its meaning, why use the …
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:56 AM
5

Oppression is defined as: any language or action that expresses, reinforces, upholds or sympathizes with any system of social domination. Jesus H. Christ. Why, every time when I'm all "It can't get more _____er than this", am I proven wrong?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:15 AM
7

You wish.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 12:56 AM
7

I laughed, I guess I'm really going to hell now.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 05:25 PM
4

Um, there is no single gauge labelled 'rights', nor is this a zero-sum game. There are areas of law and culture in which men have more rights, and areas in which they have less. I don't see how the existence of former would justify and make fair the existence of latter.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 01:47 AM
3

Saying a groin attack can never be funny because men can die from it is disturbingly parallel to saying rape jokes can never be funny and by telling them you're supporting rape culture.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:03 AM
3

NSWATM making reasonable posts, snarktom making insightful rather than 'witty' comments... am I in bizarro world?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 10:20 PM
2

I meant the OOP, this is a crosspost. Notice he commented here, expressing surprise about reactions of people.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 09:28 PM
1

You know nothing about context of the conversation, and yet you make such absolute statements. But judging by the fact that it was posted in /r/funny, one could suspect that OP didn't actually mind the conversation and it wasn't treated seriously.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 09:11 PM
9

It has been said here already but it bears repeating: one of the handles has "grass" written on it. It's a joke.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:38 PM
10

EDIT: The MRA troll brigade has been activated. Please downvote that thread and ignore the trolls who follow it to this post. Wow, just wow. They always complain about 'downvote brigades' when all that happens here is simply linking to different subreddits, without any commands, and yet they explicitly order to downvote this thread. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:52 PM
3

Wow, I haven't seen the edit. Truly, it's a gift that keeps on giving!
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:44 PM
8

This is the most sensible comment in this thread.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:27 AM
2

I see two problems with this: 1. There is a finite amount of 'slots' at the main page, so clogging it with minutiae makes more important articles fall down and get less viewership. 2. I think our focus should be on institutional misandry first and foremost, and focusing on random facebook pictures and anecdotes makes us all look petty rather than serious.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:56 PM
4

Please describe, in clear terms, which part of her comment was misandric. Because I think you're seeing only what you want to see.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 11:09 PM
-3

Some guy criticizes Thomas Ball in the comments there. Next two comments respond to that, anonymously of course, with ad hominem, Godwins and strawmen. I snark at the tremendous weight of their arguments. My comment gets deleted. Just lovely. Let's put it that way: without looking it up, name one other person who set him or herself on fire in protest. Well? Yep, I thought so. Since I've never given a damn about such people and their causes before, I don't expect general public to care about this…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 02:31 PM
1

I clicked the link, expecting to see some bullcrap. Saw an actually reasonable discussion. Everything went better than expected.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 10:14 AM
1

I think he's just trolling. Free publicity and all that.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 10:31 AM
5

Dude, that's a troll blog. But I know one which posted such opinion in all seriousness, gonna search for it. Edit: Aaaand here it is, bullet 12. I've had a hard time believing ths one is serious, it seemed so over the top, but I've skimmed some of the other entries on that blog and, to put it in internets lingo my mind is full of fuck.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 11:16 PM
4

I don't have time to read full article at feministing at the moment, but the quotes at WATM don't seem that bad. Can anyone plese calmly explain what are the people here angry about? (And I mean this specific article, not WATM in general) Edit: OK, I've read the problematic part. Still, one can hope that the article is not a token gesture, but a sign that they're starting to get it. Silly idealistic of me to think that, I know.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 04:21 PM
1

If I'm reading this correctly, he didn't actually plant anything, just claimed to the fake teenager that he did. Doesn't sound crazy this way.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 01:25 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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