TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bluedude588 Archive

View 0 posts and 19 comments by Bluedude588 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Congrats you just described capitalism
/r/MensRights24/05/22 09:38 AM
1

In my opinion, those changes would destroy Wikipedia. It would be not much better than the thousands of Fandom wikis out there.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/22 01:24 AM
2

Oh well I’d recommend getting auto-confirmed so that you can edit semi protected articles. Editing the talk page is a much different thing. Because even if you “win” on the talk page, it’s not like anyone is forced the edit the actual article. You will often have to do that still. So I did actually edit the page. The read through the source for the shelter claim. The author was using shelter as an example of what a positive advantage looks like, but she did not claim that it was a specific advan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/22 01:22 AM
1

Starowner never edited the article. You can look at the edit history page. I’d encourage you to edit the page and slip in those counter points. Not as an entire “criticism” section, but in places that it claims that men have better access to housing. Maybe I’ll do it when I have access to a computer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/22 01:03 AM
1

That Tiggy person fundamentally doesn’t understand the way Wikipedia works. Primary sources are discouraged, especially if they are “fringe”. This prevents things like one dumb doctor from publishing Covid misinformation, for example, and then adding his findings onto Wikipedia. He did not play by the rules, and did get slapped down because of it. There is a better attempt at compiling sources in the most recent talk page discussion, but that user never edited the article itself. Even then thoug…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/03/22 12:37 AM
1

I’ve edited Wikipedia for years and have never seen that. Every time I’ve lost an editing argument it’s because I couldn’t find a source to back it up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/22 09:47 PM
1

So you think anyone should be able to write something on Wikipedia without having to use a source to back up their claim? That would be chaos and would absolutely destroy any amount of credibility Wikipedia has.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/22 09:44 PM
1

I disagree. I just read through the article, and it’s talk page, and it adheres to Wikipedia’s own rules. The controversial claims are sourced (double sourced in some cases), which is all that Wikipedia’s rules really stipulate. The talk page already has two active discussions around the bias of the article, but as one of the users points out, they are having trouble finding sources to build a counter narrative on. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Wikipedia is enforcing its…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/22 06:47 AM
2

I agree. Wikipedia follows an internal set of rules that casual users are not aware of. If you play by those rules, you can certainly make lasting changes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/22 01:38 AM
3

You can take a look yourself if interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communities#MensRights
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/03/22 01:36 AM
16

The source of Wikipedia’s bias is its sourcing requirements. To make a claim on Wikipedia, it needs to verifiable through a secondary source. I recently was in an editing war over its claim that the MensRights subreddit is misogynistic. I lost that war, because I could not find a single secondary source that claimed it wasn’t misogynistic, but there have been a few studies that have claimed it is. Of course, publishing companies have a vested interested not to talk about some things. In my exper…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/03/22 10:01 PM
7

It’s a shame that the American left has drifted into what it is today. So yeah, it’s definitely not surprising. Most “socialists” today have little in common with what socialism used to be about 100+ years ago.
/r/MensRights13/03/22 10:16 AM
2

The right has been much more successful in recruiting disillusioned men than the left has. And that’s gonna have political consequences for years to come I think.
/r/MensRights13/03/22 09:49 AM
2

Socialism is at heart a liberation ideology, so yeah I hope that Men's movements eventually embrace it over alt-right stuff.
/r/MensRights13/03/22 05:48 AM
-1

Why would 20th century economic experimentations decisively prove that capitalism has no better alternatives? Take a look at western society today. I think most of us here would agree that there has been a lot of decay. Manipulative marketing, low wages, pandemic profiteering, etc. Many of those issues are rooted in our current relationship between people/money and employees/bosses. Structuring a nation where a fraction of the population has near total control over politics, the economy, and med…
/r/MensRights13/03/22 04:03 AM
11

Disappointed that there doesn’t seem to be many leftists here.
/r/MensRights13/03/22 03:38 AM
1

Her DNA being altered? You’re an idiot.
/r/MGTOW29/06/19 09:38 PM
0

Better to be a globalist than a nationalist
/r/MensRights28/11/16 05:16 AM
0

Nationalistic heritage is just another thing to divide us. We should look towards humanities collective heritage if anything.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 04:17 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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