TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bike_Of_Doom Archive

View 0 posts and 58 comments by Bike_Of_Doom 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)
4

There so many really weird titles though. I think it would have to be more about whether they express some desire for stuff in real life. Even though you mention cheating as part of the title there’s a bunch of really weird titled porn/scenarios where the people are hot but the premise is weird. I’d agree with the commenter above you about it not so much being about the title of the video but of a consistent theme and type rather than the title.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/25 01:03 AM
0

Feel free to look at the margin of victory he had in each of the swing states he won: Nevada: Trump won by about 50,000 in an election with a total of ~1,450,000 votes for all candidates Wisconsin: Trump won with about 30,000 more votes out in an election with ~3,393,000 votes for all candidates Michigan: Trump won by about 74,000 votes in an election involving a total of ~5,600,000 votes across all candidates Pennsylvania: Trump won by about 140,000 in an election with ~6,900,000 votes cast for…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/24 01:16 PM
4

No, elaborate on that. Explain how “surveillance would work.” A spy network? Stazi-esque informants on the payroll of Denmarks bureau of statistics? 24/7 cameras in and outside the house? Who’s going to review the thousands of hours of footage. Are ewe going to pull all these people’s phone and internet search histories too? Please elaborate on how “surveillance would work” that isn’t 100x as expensive as this and would probably turn up substantially similar results. What utter nonsense said so …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/24 04:45 AM

Than be a deadbeat, cretinous degenerate? Fuck yes, I’d rather never have sex in my life than be such a putrid cancer on society.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/24 05:15 PM
2

Well if you read the whole thing, he’s very clearly extending that idea of natural rulers/ruled and applies it very directly to slavery. Those two quotes are not from different sections of the books the second one is a direct response to the first which was in the preceding sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/24 10:28 AM
9

Have you read Aristotle’s Politics? He dedicates a whole section nearly right at the start purely to defending the idea that some people are natural slaves and others natural rulers. I won’t write a giant essay on this but he lays it out pretty simply here what his beliefs on the legitimacy of slavery was: But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/24 05:05 PM
9

Not really, you can find plenty of uniformity of bad opinions from smart people. You can find plenty of very intelligent people, including Aristotle, defending or even supporting the idea of slavery. That doesn’t mean their uniformity of thought makes it right, it just means that even smart people can also believe wrong things or accept faulty premises. What matters is the quality and soundness of an argument, not that someone who is smart in other things said it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/24 04:53 PM
3

While I’d agree that it was broadly the message that men and women are equal, I don’t think it’s true to say that they held that men and women are the same. It’s reasonable to say that they think that women have unique challenges inherent in their differences to men but that broadly we should treat the sexes equally whenever it’s possible and reasonable. I don’t agree with the person you’re responding to that this is a case where you should be treating men and women very differently, if at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/24 01:13 AM
1

Why? Unless you’re alleging that there is a large percentage of paternity fraud occurring, all you’re doing is wasting money and time on something that doesn’t have any immediate health implications for the child when in 99/100 cases it would be the same as the assumed father anyway. I don’t want my tax money going towards alleviated other men’s insecurities and paranoia.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 09:26 AM
5

If you think it’s necessary to demand an std test from your long term partner (assuming you were both tested and didn’t have any stds beforehand or both were virgins) then it’s either an accusation that they’re cheating or that you have been cheating in 99.9999% of cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 09:22 AM
3

Paternity fraud is a tiny percent of all children; if the rate of paternity fraud was 50%, then yeah, maybe the “maybe the kid isn’t mine” fear would be justified, but where’s the evidence to support that the rate is anywhere even breaking the high single digits at most?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 09:18 AM
2

I was not aware that penis in vagina conception only accounted for 1% of the population, or maybe you are confused? Are you intentionally playing dumb? This whole discussion has been on the question of paternity fraud and the only reason to test for paternity is if it is in question, and that rate, as per OP’s article, occurs only around 1% of the time. How is it wasteful? They are already running bloodwork on pregnant mothers, it is just another thing to look at. If something happens around 1% …
/r/MensRights20/10/23 04:51 AM
-3

Given that the issue, as demonstrated in OP’s article, is that it only affects about 1% of the population (as OP’s own article cited as supporting his claim defends), then making it mandatory seems entirely unnecessary and wasteful, especially because existing laws on genetic privacy are so poor. At the same time, I disagree with Frances efforts to prevent individuals from DNA testing and believe that law should be repealed. If individuals feel the need to verify paternity, it should not require…
/r/MensRights20/10/23 04:10 AM
-9

TL;DR: OP has not read his source beyond the most cursory skimming of it. Completely misrepresents the authors claims/conclusions, and fails to provide any of the evidence needed for his case. Had to cut a bit to include this due to Reddit word count lol "There are always people who will refuse to participate in random studies. This isn’t a problem if those who refuse are no different from those who do participate, but it would certainly be a problem for a study of this kind, because women with …
/r/MensRights19/10/23 08:27 PM
-20

Do you have any credible and well researched evidence to back up any of these claims and assertions? Because if you can’t, then all you’re doing is spouting completely baseless nonsense. Please provide evidence for each of these claims: Evidence that women refuse to speak truthfully in survey questions involving paternity fraud, at a level where it significantly impacts the accuracy of the data on paternity fraud. They “refuse to undergo DNA tests for research purposes” and provide examples of s…
/r/MensRights19/10/23 07:27 PM
1

I saw plenty of dumb guys making bad arguments against them. Here’s one from Jackson Hinkle, a guy, opposing their use who received over 2k likes on the post. There’s plenty of stupidity from both men and women when it comes to talking about war and the use of weapons around war and most of the anti-Ukrainian folks I can think of off the top of my head are guys.
/r/MensRights07/08/23 09:36 PM
3

She’s literally on trial for murder as we speak. Did you even read the article?
/r/MensRights21/07/23 08:31 PM
1

I consider the “issue” to be self evident That consideration is in error, and even this new attempt to justify your point is woefully inadequate. I take it, however, that since you’ve only responded to this point, I take it you’ve conceded that refugees often cannot return to their country of origin. Therefore marriage is not the only grounds on which someone can stay in the country, nor even the most plausible by historical example. these very same women were your average typical “men aint shit…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 08:11 PM
2

Plenty of refugees can never return to their country of origin, it is not ridiculous to assume that refugees will have to stay in their host country permanently, even if they should return if it becomes safe to do so within a feasible timeframe. After the fall of Vietnam to the communists, 800,000 civilians were forced to flee from their homes and most never could return due to fears of reprisal. UNLESS by some insane luck they apply for citizenship…. on the grounds of marriage. This is not the …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 11:07 AM
2

But we’re extremely off-topic now, so I suggest we’ll call it here. If you’re on this sub a lot, I’m sure we’ll run into each other again. Cheers~ Lol, fair enough. It’s near about 3:00 am here, so I should probably get to bed. I’m only around once and a while but it was fun chatting. Take care, and see you around mate.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 06:44 AM
2

I mean what’s not to like about social justice? Sounds pretty based to me. Unfortunately that discussion would require lots of defining terms, discussions of liberal philosophy and ethics, standpoint epistemology and it’s merging with intersectionalism, the role of the state in solving issues in society as well as how if at all it can do so, the essentialisation of identities and the frequent attacks by the supporters of social justices both philosophically and practically on freedoms of speech …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 06:31 AM
3

Yeah, the example you’re thinking of is that you can prove that unicorns both exist and don’t exist simultaneously if you assume that both “lemons are all yellow” and “lemons are not all yellow” to be true. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow," as it has been assumed to be true. We know that "All lemons are yellow," as it has been assumed to be true. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part, "All lemons are yellow," o…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 05:46 AM
2

Oh yeah, I agree that it’s stupid that people were hounding you for something that is easy to google. It was almost certainly done to try to poke some minor hole in whatever you cited to derail the whole argument. The only other criticism I forgot to mention in the other post is that it just kind of looks weird that you aren’t providing a source for something you claim is easy to find. Like, I fully understand why you didn’t link the studies and I completely understand your reasons but you're de…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 05:17 AM
2

I’m not involved in this thread at all, nor did I doubt your claim, but typically it’s considered good form to provide the source for a claim you make because then we know if we’re looking at the same information and not a different source with a similar claim. We can also criticize the source for errors or issues of credibility. At the same time, if you haven’t given an exact source, it’s difficult to look into anything because, for all the other party knows, it’s not the right study. It also h…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 04:13 AM
1

Lol why are you even bothering to ask for a source when you know his answer is “I made it the fuck up”
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/22 11:56 AM
6

Sorry, I should have said Quebec political elites threw a fit and sold it to the public on the other anti-Semitic grounds. That’s why I called them Vichy French supporters because that’s what a lot of the political sentiment at the top was. It was badly worded on my part and you’re right that many quebecois did actively contribute to the fight against the Nazis. I still think you’re overstating how likely it was that conscription can be overturned through attacks by looking at the crisis. It see…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:52 AM
7

Citing that time when Quebec threw a fit and didn’t want to go help win the war against one of the worst regimes in the history of the earth that were actively conducting a genocide because the province was riddled with antisemitic, Vichy France supporters isn’t exactly a good thing. That conscription crisis should be the eternal shame of Quebec, not something to celebrate. Not only were they not willing to voluntarily fight the Nazis, but they wouldn’t even be forced into fighting them. That’s …
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:31 AM
7

You ever heard the adage “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” The saying is so old it can be traced as far back as to Roman emperors and earlier. It’s the bedrock of concepts like the presumption of innocence and due process. The only people hurting actual victims in these cases are the fake victims themselves, not those that seek to punish them. They are the ones trying to abuse the process to punish those who did no wrong. It is absolute…
/r/MensRights23/06/22 01:45 AM
3

The argument is without respect for gender at all: Suppose the parties agree that one will stay home and raise the kids while the other works. The implicit assumption is that the working partner will continuously support the non-working partner in compensation for their time and continue to support them for a long time afterwards, given that marriages are not supposed to end, even if they do. If the parties break up and the non-working partner hasn’t done something like cheating to cause the bre…
/r/MensRights12/06/22 01:46 AM
10

Of course it didn’t, if it did then evidence could be presented that it doesn’t exist or at the very least is exaggerated beyond the point of reason. Better to leave it a vague and nebulous condemnation to let the person arguing it constantly move the goalposts when challenged.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 10:05 PM
1

Lol mad props to you for actually responding days later. I’m too tired to look at your links now but I’ll take a look at them since you were dedicated enough to post them now.
/r/MensRights30/01/22 01:59 AM
8

You’d think 12 hours would be enough time to come up with what should be easy to find links
/r/MensRights26/01/22 06:19 PM
12

No, that just means her gender is an opportunistic factor that the killer utilizes to kill the woman the killer hates. Not that they hate all women. To hold that position would be to hold that biology itself is misogynistic since men are far stronger than woman on average. If you hated a quadriplegic and wanted to kill him, the fact you think that he would be an easier target to an able-bodies man doesn’t mean you have contempt or hatred for quadriplegics as a group
/r/MensRights16/01/22 03:21 AM
25

isn't a man murdering a woman fundamentally misogynistic? No. How does killing a random woman demonstrate that the killer had a hatred for or contempt of women generally. Unless the killer murdered the woman because she was a woman and because he hated women generally then it’s pretty spurious to claim that the reasoning for it was a hatred or prejudice again all women. To prove this, you would need a motive. All you have now is a body with no motive. This argument is just the post hoc ergo prop…
/r/MensRights16/01/22 01:47 AM
6

They convicted that girl? I totally forgot about the case, I’m glad to hear that was the outcome because that woman was evil.
/r/MensRights14/01/22 05:44 AM
6

As if the rule was intended to do anything other than allow discrimination for groups that left wing activists wanted to support. They don’t care about that.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 01:21 AM
7

Who cares about just men specifically here, our constitution literally has a couple of different “your rights are more of a suggestion than a requirement” clauses in it with s.1 and s.33 of the charter. Hell, if the government wants, it could ban all speech within the country for 5 years and there is nothing anyone could legally do. It’s absolutely bullshit that any Canadian believes that they have rights at all, we have “rights”.
/r/MensRights17/11/21 10:22 PM
16

If it’s in Ontario they have a “get out of civil rights free” card which has an explicit carve out to allow discriminatory policies like this. It’s section 14 of the Human Rights code of Ontario: 14 (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringe…
/r/MensRights17/11/21 10:18 PM
1

Sure
/r/MensRights14/11/21 11:44 AM
1

Of course, it would be AHS messing with a sub that they don’t like. I hope the sub is back up soon. I’ve been on it for ages, and your comment just happened to alert me that it went private all of a sudden, and I didn’t know what happened. I kind of wish there was a law requiring anyone who makes an accusation that someone is a fascist to have had to read fascist philosophy. Almost every single time, whenever the left accuses someone else of fascism, their conduct is exactly like the fascists. A…
/r/MensRights14/11/21 11:23 AM
2

Do you know why the sub go private? I hope it’s back up soon.
/r/MensRights14/11/21 11:07 AM
3

Well at that point, when it’s a legitimate medical procedure, should it really be labeled MGM in that instance? If a woman needed to have a procedure that looks like what we’d described FGM to be for some legitimate medical reasons, I also think it’s inappropriate to describe it as FGM in that instance. It’s only mutilation if it’s done without consent or that convent is coerced. If it’s done by a consenting adult, it’s their business, the problem is that it is done to babies/children.
/r/MensRights08/11/21 12:54 PM
16

We don’t walk around naked though, so this obviously only becomes something that could be a factor after you’re looking at the other person naked or at the very least discussing being naked. It would seem like if that was the determining factor for if someone wanted to date me, I’ve probably not lost any opportunity of any value.
/r/MensRights08/11/21 12:48 PM
9

There still isn’t any good reason to hate snakes or bears. Can they be dangerous? Sure, does that mean that most/ all are going to, want to, or are likely to kill you? No. There is no rational reason to hate all of them or fear all of them and they all serve vital and necessary roles in the environment with very few negative interactions with humans.
/r/MensRights02/11/21 10:30 AM
2

Yeah no problem, I hope you enjoy it more than I did when I had to read it lol.
/r/MensRights29/09/21 09:58 PM
3

Yeah, you see that a lot in old writings. If you look at old US Supreme Court decisions from the first few years of America, you’ll see that the letter ‘s’ only exists when the ‘s’ is soft or as part of a name; otherwise, it’s a character that looks like an f without part of the cross to represent that sound. It genuinely makes reading anything from that period horrible because, for example, sometimes the word will be ‘sound,’ but it will look like ‘found’ because of the fake ‘f’, which is reall…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 09:45 PM
3

Yeah, their writing is pretty trash, but at least you don’t need to spend 15 minutes figuring out what each of the words actually means, these just don’t make sense in the order they’re put in, unlike 15th century English which doesn’t even have consistent spelling between words some times
/r/MensRights29/09/21 07:12 PM
27

People need to have kids and educate them in proper values outside of public schools. Public schools with extreme left wing teachers have been the death of western society. When the childless losers of those cities die off then things will start to recover.
/r/MensRights12/09/21 08:00 PM
25

I doubt anyone here would actually care if it was a mistake of fact and no commotion was raised by her. It’s the entitlement and her need to announce her presence and make a scene about it. It’s also about the double standard; if a guy had barged into the women’s washroom in the same manner, I suspect you’d find it somewhat upsetting or at least highly improper. It would likely have resulted in some form of removal by security and potentially criminal charges for the man that did not occur to th…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 04:41 PM
1

Man I how that looks to my eyes: Agains that e subreddits
/r/MensRights13/08/21 10:47 PM
4

Yeah that’s essentially what I meant you just gave a far better explanation of it
/r/MensRights09/08/21 09:11 PM
30

It isn’t the 50km run they’re scrapping it’s the 50km walk run where essentially they’re not allowed to move faster than a very fast walk. It essentially adds another hour onto the 50km race and is a stupid sport to begin with.
/r/MensRights09/08/21 08:19 PM
69

I was joking which is why I put the /s as an indication of sarcasm lol.
/r/MensRights05/08/21 10:56 PM
100

What’s wrong with that? It clearly says that Reddit bans misandry which is a good thing, right? /s
/r/MensRights05/08/21 09:31 PM
3

Lol, I agree which is why I don’t give them money, but I think onlyfans will decrease in relevance somewhat when things open up. The problem is that many young men don’t have a backbone anymore or courage to even attempt to date. They somehow believe that you can pay your way into a prostitute's heart. That only works for her legs, and even then, only partially on onlyfans, lmao.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 06:13 PM
14

A lot of these people are kind of deluding themselves that they’ve actually got a connection with the person they are paying money to. From what I’ve read they think that the person they’re paying actually cares about them and not their money. So by being locked indoors for 2 years they can’t even attempt to have a connection with people around them in the same way depending on their living situation.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 05:49 PM
10

Honestly, covid has some blame in this especially for people who were locked down under the harshest restrictions and got limited socialization for the last two years.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 04:04 PM
2

Ah, the inverse Todd Akin defence as it is formally known.
/r/MensRights29/07/21 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