TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Born_Ruff Archive

View 2 posts and 134 comments by Born_Ruff 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)
1

Obviously neither US team is competing with Barcelona in terms of revenue generation. The point I was making is that they have surged in popularity, and therefore ability to generate revenue, over the past decade. So it's not just them getting paid more because the men's team sucks.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:21 PM
0

Reducing the men's pay is certainly one way to go, though it's obviously not the favourite idea of men or women players. The woman's team has surged in popularity over the last 10 years or so though, so they probably do justify more money. Their 2015 world Cup final game was the most watched US soccer game of all time for either gender. Their jersey is the best selling soccer jersey Nike has ever sold. They generate real money for us soccer. This isn't a charity case.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 03:48 PM
-1

The women only earned more because the men failed to reach the World Cup. Lol, that's kind of the whole point here. The women generate more money for the organization because they are more successful. The goal posts haven’t moved. It's a very significant difference from the conventional claim that men get paid more because they generate more money. It's now that they actually generate less money, but hypothetically could earn more money for the team of they were better.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:43 PM
0

You are moving the goal posts here. First it is a claim that they earn less because they generate less money. When it's shown that the women actually generate more revenue, all of a sudden it's about *potential" revenue and all of these other non economic reasons like saying they play better teams (though if we go down that road we are just saying that we subjectively thank women are worth less). If you believe that people should be paid based on the revenue they generate for the organization, t…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 01:11 PM
-7

The men make nearly the same amount of money just from participating in the World Cup that the women do for it winning it. But they have not participated in a World Cup for 6 years. They have generated less money than the women's team for numerous years now yet still get paid about 2.5x more.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:32 PM
6

Which study are you referring to?
/r/PussyPassDenied15/03/19 11:11 AM
1

Why do you think there is a greater need?
/r/MensRights23/08/17 05:37 AM
2

That wasn't my comment. Why do you assume downvotes are about hiding the facts and not disagreeing with your interpretation of those facts?
/r/MensRights23/08/17 02:21 AM
4

Who is fighting you in terms of people "knowing about this"? People are challenging you on why you seem to think this is wrong or unfair.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 01:39 AM
2

Again, that's just semantics. What exactly is the problem?
/r/MensRights23/08/17 01:35 AM
2

It's just semantics. You put forward a list of health issues where men are overrepresented. I know men lead women in strokes, heart disease, AIDs, suicide, workplace deaths... These are all issues that have received lots of funding and attention. "Health" has focused on issues impacting men since the beginning of modern healthcare. So "Men's Health" is mostly covered under our standard idea of "health".
/r/MensRights23/08/17 01:17 AM
5

What makes you think we are not working on those things? Most of those Issues are receiving a lot of attention right now, and we made massive advancements in AIDS treatment due to all the attraction it received post 80's
/r/MensRights23/08/17 01:10 AM
2

Were they all actually doing stadiums? Kaufman's famous shows all seem to be places like Carnegie Hall, which is about 3000 seats.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 06:09 PM
13

Aziz Ansari has a special on Netflix from Madison Square Garden. I also think Dane Cook was one of the earlier adopters of the stadium format.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 08:45 AM
67

Her claim might be somewhat true based just on the fact that these full blown stadium comedy shows seem to be much more of a recent phenomenon. 15 years ago, if you were a big deal in comedy, you would tour theaters with 1000-5000 seats. There were only about a dozen comedians who could pull that kind of crowd consistently on tour. Sure, there were some people doing a handful of stadium shows, but it was definitely an outlier. Even though she was a big deal, I would be surprised if Lampaneli eve…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 07:23 AM
1

How is that related to Harvard? It doesn't actually say that 70% of domestic violence cases are women on men.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 04:15 PM
1

Is this the Harvard study? It doesn't say that 70 percent of domestic violence cases are women on men.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 01:41 PM
1

I can't wait for you to circle back and provide me with the source.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 01:22 PM
202

Wow, that was a great response! Concise, factual, not defensive. I wish everybody took criticism as well as you did here. Respect! Actually kind of the opposite of factual. She explained the lack of facts, and then presented a theory for why, absent facts, she thinks it is probably on the higher end.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 06:14 AM
1

Aussies need an ad campaign to discourage punching each other in the back of the head?
/r/MensRights28/09/16 04:19 PM
-3

Nice to see that you guys still downvote anything that doesn't agree with you into oblivion. Much easier to just ignore criticism than actually address it.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 07:26 PM
-5

Lol, how does quoting a claim made by another gamergate conspiracy theorist prove anything? All that this guy has found is that there were people discussing how to respond to the initial posting of all of this information. Seeing as it was about an angry ex-boyfriend harassing someone in their industry, and reporting on it could just spread the information more and increase the impact of what he did, discussion of how to best handle the situation seems pretty appropriate. Any responsible journal…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 04:05 PM
1

"Anything can be anything so we should never do anything!" Obviously certain things influence people differently than other things. We know that it is not just adults playing these games, even those rated for adults. We also know that adults are not immune from these influences either. Games certainly can be a positive influence, and discussions like this can potentially create more games like that.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:22 PM
0

Lol, that in no way means that video games are not a negative influence. If they are, why wouldn't we take a look at it? There are lots of bad things from the past that we have addressed over time.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:05 PM
0

This seems to be a recurring theme in terms of how MRAs "fight" people they disagree with. In the end all of the attention that they give to these people significantly boots their profile, increases traffic to their web properties, and ultimately makes them more money. That is why websites keep churning out more and more of this stuff.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:25 PM
1

It doesn't 'cause' anything. If you are alive on this planet, you are definitely being exposed to negative influences. This was true before there was any such thing as video games. This is kind of a non sequitur. It doesn't cause anything because negative influences have been around forever? The mere fact that you refer to negative influences implies that they are in fact influencing people. If you are saying that it is not specific to video games, I 100% agree. That is why I mentioned movies an…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:03 PM
1

I think this argument falls pretty flat. There is no rule that just because something doesn't cause one thing, that it can't cause anything else. Violence and views of women are fundamentally different issues in the lives of the majority of people who play video games. Real violence is really a foreign concept in most gamer's lives, while interacting with women is something pretty central to most people's lives. Video games are not going to cause someone to shoot up a school, but someone who doe…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:46 AM
1

Lol. How shocking. A "debate" with a MRA has degraded to petty insults. Those strongly held beliefs that you have feel great until someone actually asks you to back them up eh?
/r/MensRights12/09/14 11:04 AM
1

Lol, apparently you don't belong in that group.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:17 AM
1

Haha. Yes, I have in fact graduated from university, and in my time in school I did learn how to evaluate a source. You can't just make assumptions because it fits your preconceived notions. If it is "evaluated externally", all that means is that it was evaluated externally. There is no reason to assume anonymity unless it states as such. Maybe they black out the names, or maybe they have "Mike Smith" written on the top of the assignment. How can we know if it doesn't tell us?
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:35 PM
1

Based on what? Where did you see that written anywhere? What exactly did you base your post on?
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:23 PM
1

This is effectively challenging othe groups to show their support. No it isn't. It is trying to use their support of TFYC to carry out their favorite mission, calling feminists stupid and hypocritical. It's not saying "hey you guys, you seem to have missed this awesome project to support". It is "Look who REALLY wants to help women in the game industry". Being marginalised is kind of the default position for us anyway and it looks like TFYC were being marginalised long before this sub started ta…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 07:25 PM
1

Lol. You make claims but don't actually post any information about what those claims are based on, and I am the lazy one? Presumably, if you are not just talking out of your ass, you already have the studies handy. Why would it make sense for me to go searching all over the internet to try to figure out what you are basing your opinions on? Since this article was published today, can you please show me what you were actually basing your comments on? The article you linked to doesn't really say m…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 07:15 PM
0

I honestly don't know, but why would it have to be a kickstarter campaign type thing anyways? There are lots of initiatives around women in video games. The people you mention both support and promote numerous female game developers. Just because you guys have chosen a specific initiative doesn't mean everyone else has to be doing exactly what you are doing. The worst part is that this is simply bad for TFYC. No charitable effort has ever been successful by explicitly harassing and insulting peo…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 04:45 PM
-2

Come on guys. It is a new level of petty bullshit to start using charities as a means to attack your favorite targets. Just because you guys picked up a pet organization doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to support them or else they are bad people. There are a million different causes out there, lots of different people trying to increase the number of women making games in different ways. This is exactly why other groups have refused to accept money from groups like "Reddit the Fappen…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 03:47 PM
1

I am really looking more for an actual link to the research.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 12:57 PM
1

How prevalent is this? I know that teachers definitely do mark differently based on who's work they are marking, but what kind of study was done to show that it was just based on gender? The differences in academic success for boys is definitely largely do to actions taken by boys. They do generally have a harder time sitting quietly and paying attention for long periods of time, so they do tend to be more disruptive. They do tend to mature a little later. Those are the kind of things that can b…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 06:46 PM
1

Yes, more than a dozen examples of different feminist theories. Take your pick.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 02:40 PM
1

I provided an example example. Well, about 15 of them.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 02:01 PM
1

It is clearly not that simple. See the list. :)
/r/MensRights10/09/14 01:23 PM
1

My argument was: Here is a non exhaustive list of many different feminist theories that demonstrate that your simplistic view of feminism is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:30 AM
1

Lol, why don't you provide a counterexample then?
/r/MensRights09/09/14 03:44 PM
0

People definitely look at things differently based on what the end results are, and how much they view it as a "fair fight". Obviously Ray Rice catching his girlfriend with a left hook does not in any way seem like a "fair fight" and the results looked very very scary(her laying motionless on the ground).
/r/MensRights08/09/14 08:50 PM
1

Lol. Why only one? You are free to take your pick.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:26 PM
1

This is such a strange conversation. People need to work in order to pay bills. Kids need to be cared. There are laws around all of these things. It is clear that our current teaching methods in schools are not leading to boys being as successful as girls, but classifying this as "boys suffering at the hands of a woman" is very strange. Especially that you seemingly are trying to assert that this is the only situation in life where people of different genders experience different amounts of succ…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 06:59 PM
3

Characterizing the fact that our current education system isn't set up well for boys as "every man suffering at the hands of a woman" is a tad melodramatic. By that standard, the article also talks about women being penalized in the workforce, so why not classify that as "all women suffering at the hands of men".
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:33 PM
1

It is about 30 of them.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:01 PM
1

If you want an idea of the variety of ideologies that exist within "feminism", maybe this will help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
/r/MensRights08/09/14 08:42 AM
15

Attracting more males to become teachers is a good idea, but it isn't really the solution to this problem. We need systematic implementation of learning techniques that work better for boys. These should be implemented regardless of the sex of the teacher.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 08:28 AM
1

Why do you believe this?
/r/MensRights08/09/14 08:13 AM
1

Lol, counter to what example? All you have done is give your own opinion. The examples of how feminism is not a set of singular rules and beliefs can be seen right in this group, as countless threads are started about feminists disagreeing on things.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 08:03 AM
1

They see what feminism presents itself as and then choose to align themselves with it. That speaks plenty about their own beliefs. No matter how many times toy say it, it wont make it true. Feminism is not a singular ideology. Insisting that women are significantly disadvantaged overall relative to men is. It is observably false. This is a silly statement. The issue is much much to complicated to make such a simplistic statement like that. Nobody is claiming that women are never at a disadvantag…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 06:52 AM
1

We are judging them by their choice to associate themselves with feminism. An ideology we believe to be fundamentally flawed. They are saying that they are feminists. They are saying that we live in a rape culture, they are saying that men have "male privilege". Again, you are not judging people based on what they say or their own beliefs. You are judging them based on a mishmash of stuff you have heard various people say. Factually wrong but not morally wrong, as judgments based on gender are. …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 05:50 AM
1

That you can judge people based on their choices is a childish false premise? In that case why are you judging us for our choice to generalize about feminists? The fact is that you are not judging people based on their choices. You are judging people based on your preconceived notions about a particular label. I am judging you based on what you are actually saying, that is a big difference. All I cared about was pointing out that there is a huge difference between generalizations based on gender…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 03:50 AM
1

I really believe this is a false premise and frankly childish. You seem to care more about calling people names rather than being correct. Remember that you said: You choose to accept feminism's ideological framework and push it's agenda. There simply isn't one ideological framework or agenda, so when you make sweeping generalizations about all "feminists", you are simply always going to be wrong. There is a lot of debate within "feminist" circles regarding what people believe and what people sh…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:32 AM
0

Calling people who say they are part of the Westboro Baptist Church retards does not equate to hatred against Christians, nor is it a "sweeping generalization" Comparing feminists to people who are part of Westboro Baptists is not an appropriate comparison, since the "church" is a well defined small group of people who all expressly signed on to represent a specific ideology and follow specific leaders. "Feminists" are a very broad group of people with many different beliefs. You can't appropria…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 04:58 PM
1

Feminist certainly isn't the same thing as a gender, but it is such a broad and wide reaching group that sweeping generalizations and insults to the entire group are just as inappropriate. There is no one agenda or ideological framework that everyone who identifies as feminist follows. You see that clearly when you see how often women who identify as feminists have strong debates over different issues. You should be aware of this, since most of these debates are posted about here as examples of …
/r/MensRights07/09/14 04:14 PM
-2

hate speech against men, sweeping generalizations, Browsing though here there are lots of things that could fit into these categories. It seems pretty common to see people refer to feminists as "retards" and all sorts of other negative terms, which kind of satisfies both the hate speech and sweeping generalization points. Inaccurate and faked statistics are the domain of feminism, not the Men's Human Rights Movement. I think everyone is guilty of crimes against statistics. So many people have ze…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 08:30 AM
-17

Doesn't it sounds a lot like you are describing r/MensRights? Genders switched obviously.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 06:07 AM
1

That isn't necessarily what the data is showing. The most simple explanation is that more women are reducing work hours to care for kids. Since full time jobs generally pay more than jobs that are only offered part time, when they cut back hours at these otherwise full time jobs, they are skewing the part time earnings upwards. This does not necessarily say that if a man had to do the same thing, that he would earn less than a woman would. It simply shows that men are not doing this as much as w…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 04:07 PM
0

Lol, public sympathy? Who on earth is reading this at this point other than me and you? I am pointing out that you are ignoring my arguments and instead just tossing insults. I am not upset about being insulted, I am annoyed that you are avoiding answering the very basic questions that I am asking you. If you can't respond to such basic things, then why are you even bothering to respond at all?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:49 PM
1

I didn't claim there was any discrimination. This appears to just represent a well known factor affecting the labor market, which is that women tend to work less in order to raise children. It seems demonstrated by the fact that the higher part time earnings for women are only present in the 20's and 30's. The people cutting back hours at good full time jobs are going to skew the part time hourly earnings upwards. I don't think it is a stretch to call jobs that pay more and offer more hours are …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:38 PM
0

this is not a personal attack.......... You made a fool of yourself Hmmmmm. Obviously this isn't an "attack" in the online death threat sense. It is in the sense that you repeatedly insult me instead of actually responding to any of my points. Most glaringly, you still have no said anything about what that study actually counts as "abuse". It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article or the supporting documents I could find. Without knowing this, this study means absolutely nothing. You have also …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:26 PM
0

Oh, I am quite happy with how this discussion is turning out. It stands as evidence of the kind of bullshit that feminists with which feminists argue. If you are going to try to personally attack me, at least write in proper sentences. All you have done so far is repeatedly insist that your one link proves everything and insult me for not going along with it. Is that supposed to be a winning debate style?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:44 PM
0

You are right in your previous post that this study is limited. It isn't conclusive about gendered rates of abuse. That isn't the point. The point is that it provides enough evidence to suggest that this isn't a gendered problem. This is asinine. How can it not be conclusive, but somehow show that this isn't a gender problem? Bad studies don't prove your point less, they don't prove anything. If we don't know what they count as abuse, we don't know anything. You wanted an example of a man treate…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:21 PM
0

What, point out the glaring flaw in your "study"? Exactly what part of my post do you think is wrong? Is is wrong to think that this case is more similar to a journalist than the prime minister of England? Is it wrong to point out that we have no idea how they are quantifying "abuse"? You are certainly wrong to expect that posting one link is just going to settle the issue? The funny thing is you are being critical of me doing exactly what you did in response to me link. Talk about a double stan…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 04:55 AM
1

This really isn't anything sinister or earth shaking. It is mostly just a function of the fact that more women chose/have to work part time because of family obligations, and likely that this is more accepted and accommodated in female dominated professions. More women working part time had good full time jobs but cut down on the hours because they had kids. More of the men working part time are doing so because that is the best job that they could find. Obviously the people cutting back hours a…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:21 AM
7

Gawker has never exactly been a beacon of right and wrong in the world. The prevailing trend in the media in regards to this case is to be sympathetic, so they are going along with it. They have been much less sympathetic about previous leaks involving both men and women. It seems like people are more empathetic about this recent case because it was so wide spread and makes everyone worry about their own privacy. It is easier to laugh at one person who seemingly did something that could never ha…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:11 AM
1

Lol. Why is is that when you post one small study you seem to think you have definitively settled the debate? For starters, if you actually read the study, it says that female journalists receive three times as much abuse as male journalists. Journalists are probably the most analogous group to this situation, given that the whole issue is ostensibly about game journalism. Overall though, there is a pretty huge question around that study that doesn't seem to be answered in any of the source mate…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 11:35 PM
0

They did give context in the article. Did you read it? They didn't explain everything you are mad about, but when an incident is reported on the news, how often do you see them go into detail about who the individuals involved may have slept with? It simply isn't relevant to the issue in the article. Who she slept with in no way makes the harassment okay or justified.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 03:08 PM
1

Lol, you are the FBI now? Read what I said. Your rationalization has no bearing on the seriousness of any particular threat. It isn't like if someone threatens me and I report it, they are going to tell me "famous people get threats all the time so you shouldn't worry about it". Receiving death threats is a serious thing. For starters, they are against the law. Secondly, it is very wrong to try to scare and intimidate someone because you disagree with their views. Again, not that plausibility is…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:57 PM
1

Again, the threats themselves are illegal. Also, your rationalization of how much a threat may or may not pose a danger has absolutely no bearing on the reality of any specific threat. Why should anyone be subjected to any additional level of danger based on their opinions on video games?
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:23 PM
1

I would be behind police action taken against those individuals as long as they looked at it without the bias your side of the argument seems to have. What exactly are you talking about here? What bias could someone have regarding death threats? I guess you will have seen the dozens of stories of celebrities and on-line personalities who have been attacked and killed after receiving thousands of threats on-line, oh wait, no you haven't because that doesn't happen, could it happen possibly, maybe…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 01:43 PM
0

I think we can both agree that asking if anyone has ever been harassed before is a dumb question. That is not what I meant to write, but that is obviously my bad. It really doesn't make any sense to compare her to prominent US politicians. It has been well understood for a long time that going into politics in the US exposes your personal life to public scrutiny. To make a meaningful comparison, we need to look towards people who are in at least somewhat similar situations. Other game developers…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 04:26 AM
0

This isn't even remotely true. Is that so? Have you seen the reaction to the petition simply asking people to stop the harassing each other? People who discriminate against women tend to also discriminate against men. What is this based on? You should try to follow the argument. The argument is whether this is a unique experience by women in society. Well, no. This thread is about women being harassed online, and how the harassment they experience online may be different than what men experience…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 03:47 AM
0

I have seen a LOT of stuff about your side of the argument. I simply do not agree. Places like this are an echo chamber. People who think like you are upvoted and anyone who disagrees is downvoted out of sight. Within this echo chamber, certain things are obviously important and other things are obviously not and everyone knows that. But this echo chamber isn't the real world. In the real world, harassment and violent threats are a very serious issue. They may be less to you, but it is likely be…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 12:11 AM
0

The difference is drastically important. The focus is on implementing measures to change society to prevent this occurring - a good thing - but these measures are going to fail unless they properly address the underlying reason for the behaviour. At this point, the discourse really isn't at the point of any meaningful discussion of how to change this behavior because so many people can't even accept that it is wrong in the first place. Overall though, how different are those three things really?…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 11:57 PM
1

First off, I would like to state that this really isn't a troll post. It is a topic that came up in numerous other discussions here and I thought it was an interesting addition. Nobody ever claimed that this was scientific. It is one woman's experience. Scenarios 1. 2. and 4. all more or less display themselves in the same way and are not mutually exclusive. The difference also really isn't very important. Nobody can know what you are thinking. What really matters is what you actually say and do…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 10:00 PM
1

Lol, 9 minutes is pretty short for an NPR show. There is a summary if you scroll down a bit.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 07:22 PM
0

In numerous other Zoe Quinn threads, people have made comments to the effect that men are harassed just as much as women. This is an example of how that might not be true.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:57 PM
1

I get the sense that you are not exactly open to discussion of topics that might not 100% support your point of view.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:40 PM
-1

Lol, if the Zoe Quinn incident isn't relevant to men's rights, you guys sure could have fooled me.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:22 PM
-3

Something to think about regarding the harassment around the Zoe Quinn incident.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:10 PM
0

When Eron Gjoni corrects the timeline to dispel connotations that her alleged relationships affected the promotion of her game, and nobody seems to care, it makes it seem like it really doesn't have much to do with integrity. People didn't like her before, and this was just something that gave them a reason to attack her. The bias really seems to be on your end, when you can't look at something as simple as a request for everyone to stop harassing everyone and assume it is an attack against your…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:53 PM
1

So if I call someone a "bitch" or "whore" I hate all women? No, I would be calling that one person a bitch or a whore. :( (not that I have or would ever do that to be clear) We both know that the stuff being hurled around goes a lot farther than that. But if you don't think this stuff implies anything about you, why would you clarify that you would never say it? Because he has evidence for it and everything found so far suggest that is the case or is the most likely outcome, we also don't have a…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:20 PM
0

both men and women receive harassment on-line This is not necessarily true. Have you ever seen another example of this sort of harassment over a game developers personal life? Also, people have done experiments where they post the same things online as a woman and as a man, and the reactions they get are very very different. For one thing, the female version gets a lot more death threats. Also we are taking these claims of being harassed on faith from people who have already been shown to be unt…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:57 PM
1

There was definitely backlash against Syndey Leathers, and she has pretty much ruined her own life by this point, but really, what are you trying to prove? None of these pictures in this case have been obtained in any way similar to what happened to Carlos Danger. An experienced politician sending photos of his junk to strangers online while campaigning for public office is a pretty different situation than someone keeping personal photos in their personal files.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:21 PM
1

Lol, who said that? Do you not agree that sending naked photos to strangers online is different than having your personal files hacked?
/r/MensRights03/09/14 03:22 PM
1

People being treated differently in different situations is not a double standard.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 01:06 PM
-1

I really don't get how you guys think. ....is this right, no of course not and people should never be harassed... Then there is no reason why you should be against this very basic petition. When you guys freak out over stuff like this, you make this the issue. Agreeing that harassment is wrong is pretty basic. Acting in a way that makes it seem like you are ok with this kind of stuff makes you all look misogynistic and crazy. I mean, if you take a step back, how can you reasonably expect people …
/r/MensRights03/09/14 12:56 PM
0

There are a number of problems with that. For one thing, is cheating on someone really considered abuse? And secondly, how are we supposed to determine if it is true or not? Does being in a relationship with someone really entitle you to publicly attack them personally and professionally?
/r/MensRights03/09/14 01:40 AM
0

If this is supposed to be about games, why is it being organized around sites that are following the Zoe Quinn story and the Men's rights sub?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:46 PM
0

Do you not believe that Zoe Quinn and many other involved in this issue(on both sides) have been subjected to harassment? Or do you just believe that they deserve the harassment?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:28 PM
-2

Then that doesn't apply to the Nigerian Prince example, since you willingly transferred the money in that scenario. Seriously though, how much time do you really want to spend arguing about a metaphor? If you really want to do this, you have to start upvoting my comments so I can post more than once every 10 minutes.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:20 PM
-4

If one of your complaints about this whole situation is censorship, why does it feel like you are trying to tell me what I can and cannot talk about?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 10:04 PM
-2

By that logic, me using a debit card to buy groceries is the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:53 PM
-1

Lol, you clicked on a reddit thread about an article about harassment. I'm sorry if you are mad that not every article in the world is about what you want to talk about, but it really isn't a reasonable expectation. No matter how much you want to ignore it, harassment is obviously a huge issue in this. The whole thing stems from an act of harassment by her ex boyfriend, taking to the internet to make all of these accusations about her and share private conversations that they had with the world.…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:43 PM
-2

Lol. They are against different laws because they are different things.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:29 PM
-2

If you don't want to discuss harassment, don't click on an article about harassment. The whole world isn't going to conform to whatever you are obsessed with. The letter is very clear that nobody should be harassed. It in no way says that it is ok for one side to harass the other because they were harassed. If you feel so strongly about people on your side of the argument being harassed, why do you think it is ok for people on the other side to be harassed? Can't we all agree that all the harass…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:17 PM
-2

Online abuse cannot be solved by some silly meaningless SJW open letter. The situation could be made a lot better if attitudes within the gaming community changed. If people who harassed people were marginalized and shamed instead of celebrated, you would see less of it. You views of what should or shouldn't be involved in a game are perfectly valid. There is simply no reason that people have to harass anyone who disagrees with them. Still repeating the feminist stance, really? What is feminist …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:05 PM
-1

For starters, do you, or do you not agree, that the things that you are talking about justify or mitigate the harassment that has been targeted at various people in this situation? As for your claim that the harassment issue is just a distraction, we can go around and round on this, but again: Just because it isn't what you want to talk about doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Just because you don't care, or don't want to talk about harassment doesn't mean it isn't an issue. This whole incident has…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:49 PM
-6

The article is about harassment. The stuff you are talking about would only really be relevant to this discussion if you think that it somehow justifies or mitigates the harassment that they are talking about. Is that how you feel about this situation?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:14 PM
-4

This is silly. Online abuse is an issue. Just because it isn't what you want to talk about doesn't mean it isn't an issue. The stuff that is happening to these people is horrible, and with people releasing their personal information, they have good reason to fear that this will not all remain in the virtual world. Criticism of someone's work or talents is a completely different issue than harassment. It is perfectly valid to be critical of people, but it in no way legitimizes harassment. When yo…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:04 PM
1

Strictly speaking, boycotting companies that side with SJWs isn't enough. Because if you remove yourself, the enemy has essentially won. They WANT you to go away. This really isn't true. Websites make money based on page views, so the more an article is shared, debated, linked to, etc, the better for them. It really doesn't matter if you like the article or hate it, as long as it generates page views. Your "cogent arguments and credible accusations" don't hurt them in any way. The best way to hu…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:33 PM
6

Still not the same thing. Sending photos over the internet to people you have never met is a different situation from someone hacking into your personal files. You probably wouldn't say that someone sending money by Western Union to a Nigerian Prince that sent them an email is the same as someone having their bank account hacked by cyber criminals.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:09 PM
-3

We believe that everyone, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion has the right to play games, criticize games and make games without getting harassed or threatened. Lol, how is this an attack on anyone? Even if you don't like certain topics being discussed, do you really support the people who are threatening, harassing, and doxxing people? One of the most common reasons that people give for why they harass other people online is because they say they or someone else t…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:46 PM
4

This really isn't a double standard. In one case people hacked into people's private files to steal personal photos. Anthony Wiener posted photos of his junk publicly on twitter, and sent other photos over the internet to people that he had never met.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:36 PM
0

If you are going to complain about harassment and doxxing(not to mention hacking, threatening, etc etc), shouldn't you be pretty upset about the reaction to this whole Zoe Quinn thing? The crazy thing about this is that this is all based on one angry ex boyfriend. He has even clarified the dates to make it clear that he has no reason to believe that the reviews of Depression Quest were influenced by anything he claims she did, but I guess people are only going to take his word as gospel when he …
/r/MensRights29/08/14 02:28 PM
0

Well, no. You are still talking about them conspiring together, aka a conspiracy.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:34 AM
-1

Lol. Nepotism, bribes, cover ups! Do you know what a conspiracy is?
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:17 AM
2

If you want that new company to succeed, you need to read, share, and link to their articles at least as much as you do the feminist ones you get mad about.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:05 AM
-1

I didn't say you. I said some people, which I think is pretty accurate statement. There are tons of people making comments to that effect, especially around this whole Zoe Quinn thing. You don't need to click on articles, search for them, subscribe, etc. Actually, you do have to click on the articles if you want to read them. You do need to subscribe if you want to get these articles pushed into your inbox, twitter, or Facebook feed. Your community online is really whatever you want it to be. If…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:39 PM
0

It's better than just letting it happen and treating it as normal That isn't really what is happening. All of the page views, shares, and link backs are a huge incentive for the sites to pump out more articles like that.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:27 PM
-3

You are never going to make a website change by subscribing to them, reading all the articles you don't like, and then sharing them with other people. It seems like some people think there is a conspiracy going on, but if you respond this way to their articles, they make more money. Obviously they are going to gravitate to whatever generates the most page views/shares/link back. For the most part, nobody is paying to read these articles, so they don't really owe you anything. It's not a personal…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:54 PM
-5

not have to sit through article after article about SJW bullshit. I don't really get this. Nobody is forcing you to click on those articles or watch those videos. Why do you feel like you have to read them or watch them if you hate them so much? If everyone read, shared, and debated the articles that were straightforward information about games, those are the articles that would get churned out more, but lately it seems like gender issues are the only thing that really gets anyone(MRA, feminist,…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:26 PM
-4

I'd honestly really like to hear what you mean by "something", as in "something needs to happen soon", and "something needs to be done". It certainly doesn't seem like the current tactic of internet flame wars is having the desired effect.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:44 PM
-6

The thing I don't get is, if all you want to do is game, why are you engaging in this at all in the first place? If you just want to play games, why does any of this affect your ability to do that? This is a completely serious question. When you say "something needs to happen soon", what do you think that could be? It feels like as long as all of the feminist articles get shared and viewed a million times, they are going to keep pumping them out.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:38 PM
1

Lol, you want to talk about stawman? Responding to thing that you said is not a straw man. You claimed that people have spoken out against the idea that women should say no if they don't want to have sex. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2eqhc8/new_rape_prevention_product_angering_feminists/ck2ldd6 Now, this is a strawman argument.... YOU are telling women "saying no won't help so there's no point. You can if you want to, but it won't help". I certainly never said anything even close …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 05:49 PM
1

Lol, no. I find your lack of comprehension funny. Nobody has ever said that if someone doesn't want to have sex, that they should not say no. Find one example of that if you think it actually has happened. The problem I have with your statements is that they all have words like "need" and "responsibility". It shifts the focus away from the fact that you shouldn't be having sex with someone who is not enthusiastically(and continuously) providing consent in the first place. If the woman has the "r…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:09 PM
0

Worse - you basically implied that the man already knows that she doesn't want sex ("Do you really think it is that hard to tell if someone is into what you are doing or not?"), so saying "no" is redundant. He already knows anyway! Lol, you really need to read the website you quoted. Their guidelines you put forward are not about "no". They are about clear yes. You shouldn't be having sex with someone if it is not clear that they want to be having sex with you. Is that such a crazy concept? Noti…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:32 PM
1

Lol. You are still all over the map. I SAID MYSELF! There are numerous examples of women being partially blamed for their own rape based on things that judges perceived could have been done by the woman to prevent it. If constantly testing your drinks for drugs is made into an expected norm, why would you expect this to be treated any differently? What part of this statement is hard for you to understand? Please tell me so that I can help you out.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:00 PM
1

They control what tools women have available to them - what tools they are taught. So in that case - yes, there are feminists that advocate NOT to teach women to say "no" (they can do if they want, but don't you dare teach it to them) because that's victim blaming. Seriously, provide one direct quote that supports this. One person who has ever said that it is bad to tell women to say no if they don't want to have sex. I want to hear it from you: If a woman gave enthusiastic consent and mid act c…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:46 PM
1

You have eyes. The number of mocking and sarcastic responses in this thread is plain to see. You also have eyes that can read the article. Nobody is trying to deny anyone access to anything. They are concerned that people will see this as a solution, and that it will stop people from feeling the need to address the root of the problem. How does this perpetuate rape?
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:59 AM
1

They're intended to prevent ACCIDENTS. Which I wrote about. But you don't read anything you don't like, right? They are intended to prevent use by anyone other than the owner. Lots of crime is committed with guns that are taken from their rightful owners. But in EVERY OTHER CRIME the potential victims are taught some ways of preventing the crime: Women are already expected to do a lot of things to prevent being raped. You can find huge lists of these things all over the place. Not walking home a…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:48 AM
1

Lol, wow. Can you find one direct quote of someone saying that women should not say no if they don't want to have sex? You have completely warped the message of at campaign. In no possible way can this be misconstrued anyone saying that someone should not say no if they do not wish to have sex. Consent cannot be gained through manipulation, intimidation, or threatening behaviour. A person who is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs can't give consent. Consent cannot be given by a person who is pass…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:34 AM
1

It is about a product that is used to prevent a crime. Smart guns are not intended to prevent any sort of crime? SHOW ME ONE thing that feminists agree is a good idea to teach women that might prevent their attack. You are again changing the question. Why focus only on things that women have to do to protect themselves? Rape prevention is about much more than just thinking up more and more elaborate tool for women to help fend off attacks. But seriously though, have you actually heard people spe…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 05:11 AM
1

Can you maybe have some empathy to other people even if the rights that are important to them aren't those that are important to you? Lol, that seems to be a pretty good question for all you men's rights folk. You realize you are posting this in a thread specifically created to mock people's concerns about women being raped? I never disparaged people's concerns about smart guns. I put it forward as a similar situation. I did disparage your misinformation about the situation though(for example cl…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:51 AM
0

Lol, again, you are all over the map. This thread isn't about rape prevention in general, it is about a specific product that is being put forward as a solution. Nobody is against rape prevention in general. The debate is about how it should be achieved. So your whole "name a crime" makes no sense. It is about a product. By ignoring my point about how anger about smart guns is directed much wider than just at NJ legislators, can I assume you are conceding that point? The issue of infringement of…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:41 AM
1

Not laws. Law. One law, in one state, that is obviously going to be overturned. That one law clearly isn't the reason behind all the uproar. If that was the only issue, why are people freaking out all over the US, and why are they subjecting the inventor of these devices to such vitriol, instead of just the state legislators? Can you show me exactly where in that article that anyone says that they want to prevent the production of this nail polish? Their point is pretty clear. They don't want th…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:44 AM
0

Lol, you are all over the map here. Obviously there are going to be difference if they are two different situations. Smart guns are another example of people being critical of a proposed solution because of the effects that they believe it will have on the political/societal situation around the issue. People are up in arms about smart guns because they worry that if they are accepted they will be expected to use them. Right now that is only a real potential issue in New Jersey, but that doesn't…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:22 AM
-4

Smart guns.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:59 PM
-9

Did you completely miss this part? From what I have seen, people are not worried about the product itself, so much as they are worried that it will be seen as a solution that would replace further action on the issue. They are also worried that people would be expected to use something like this, and if they don't, they would be seen as at fault. You are using one big straw man argument.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:43 PM
-4

Actually, if break ins were that bad and the most prominent solution put forward was simply buying better locks, you would most certainly get push back on that. From what I have seen, people are not worried about the product itself, so much as they are worried that it will be seen as a solution that would replace further action on the issue. They are also worried that people would be expected to use something like this, and if they don't, they would be seen as at fault. We all understand that we…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:23 PM
-13

It's not really the same thing as just locking your door. Women already do a lot of things specifically to try to stay safe when going out at night. The idea of having to constantly test your drinks on top of all that might seem over the top to some people. If things were so bad in your neighborhood that you had to constantly monitor your front door in order to prevent break ins, you would probably be interested in fixing the source of that problem too.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 10:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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