TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Celehest Archive

View 5 posts and 58 comments by Celehest 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)
5

If you're not sure how Wikipedia works, or for anyone who isn't here's the download. Within every entry on Wiki there are two pages. The first being the one you see when you search for someone or something, and the second a "talk" page where editors debate relevance of content, sources and more. There are rigorous debates on the Lena Dunham page as whether to, or how to include the sexual controversy in a way that it adheres to both Wiki's policy on autobiography of living people and source cred…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 10:21 PM
13

Please don't use the abortion of a word that "meninism" is ever again. Also; that chick definitely committed a felony.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 08:31 PM
9

Your survey is ambiguous at best. You have several questions relating to social justice, I hope you understand that social justice and societal justice isn't the same thing. In these questions you're basically asking people about their opinion on mob justice and you're doing it on a binary scale without context. I also hope you understand that from question 22. the parts regarding "justice" is actually about ethos and morality, not justice and that paying extra attention to normally marginalized…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 07:07 PM
1

You're misinterpreting the SJW term. Social Justice Warrior doesn't refer to societal justice, it's literally "social" as in togetherness. Mob justice. Feminism and SJW's blend well because Feminism already is a bullying mob online, therefore there's a lack of distinction.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 08:06 AM
1

Let it stay at /r/wtf, I don't see it's relevance here.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 02:10 AM
0

It isn't okay to hit a women, not even if she hits you. I'm sorry guys, but two wrongs does not make a right no matter how tempting it is to highfive an abusive cow in the face. If someone hits you (regardless of gender) it's a matter for the police period. It doesn't justify that you hit them back. If someone hits you and your auto-response is to hit back it's another matter because you're defending yourself against a perceived threat. Similarly if someone assaults you repeatedly you can hit ba…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:48 AM
2

If you want to ponder the implications of BDSM I personally think it should be done on another sub. This commercial is obviously meant to be humorous, not taken seriously. Let's be better than the already hated part of feminism that insists on political correctness in every aspect of our culture.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:14 AM
3

Arguing from a non-emotional standpoint it seems that this woman is either; A: Clouded by her experiences and therefore prevented in applying the critical thinking skills required to properly analyze the situation or, B: Unintelligent. Sorry, but what do you expect? Should questions not be asked to victims? Should we assume guilt rather than innocence? Her thoughts on what these questions imply are shallow and biased, they contain no examination as to why we ask these questions. Did the campus p…
/r/MensRights16/11/14 11:45 PM
8

Ignore the new rules. Go about your day as if they didn't exist. If you get in trouble simply explain that society evolved beyond the concept of apartheid decades ago and that you will not acknowledge old archaic rules founding in oppression, segregation and discrimination. Stand your ground, be polite and calm.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 04:05 PM
4

Okay, so here's a basic fact-check and some thoughts into the problems with her arguments. Sources are on the bottom. I apologize in advance for this wall of text. Afghanistan has more female politicians than the US. Afghanistan: 111 US: 430 (without counting the ones from state legislature) So, as we can see it is decidedly not true that they have MORE, however there's a quota in Afghanistan which states that 20% of Afghan politicians must be female. In the last election only 13 women were elec…
/r/MensRights23/09/14 04:55 AM
1

Sure, but this isn't an issue of custody. It's an issue of murder. I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly rare occurrence and in no way does it relate to any norm.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 12:03 PM
3

Being from Denmark I find this tragic, however I'm not sure how it's relevant for this particular subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 02:45 PM
1

Okay, so there seems to be some conflicting points under the law. Please note that I am not A lawyer nor a Canadian I'm simply doing my best to navigate the circumstances. The Canadian constitution section 15 reads: (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical d…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 02:39 PM
1

Yeah, so that article is biased as all hell.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 12:58 PM
4

Setting aside the hypocrisy of harassment as women continue to cry for female only places, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. In order for any business to be able to cater to only one gender it needs to be a membership only business. A barbershop that isn't one is committing gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 04:34 AM
5

If it's not a members only club, it's illegal to discriminate based on gender.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 11:10 PM
1

I believe Karen Straughan has some on her youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat
/r/MensRights28/07/14 10:57 PM
0

I do for one, and I'm sure others do too. There's a lot of reposts on this sub already and not just the same stuff being posted twice, but sometimes three or four times in rapid succession. I think it's great that people want to contribute, but stopping for a quick scroll through the new page, or just doing a quick search might be advisable.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 05:51 AM
0

Just popping in to say repost: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29c3ap/thunderf00t_if_men_acted_like_feminists/
/r/MensRights29/06/14 03:09 AM
-1

Just popping in to say that this has been posted several times already.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 02:25 AM
1

Interestingly I must say that I completely disagree with a lot of the reactions you guys are posting. Mainly because the operative word in the skit is coerced which can be many things. Now speaking from personal experience I can remember many times when I've been coerced into having sex I really didn't want. Sometimes the woman in question was sexually aggressive. Sometimes her girlfriend was pushing for it to happen. Most times I felt I "had to" because my masculinity was being threatened, or p…
/r/MensRights26/06/14 01:09 AM
2

Again, the problem with the Schrodinger's rapist analogy as it stands is that it ISN'T rational. The object of the proposed change is to make it more rational in an argument by making it more literal without using fallacious date. I say again. In order to make the argument more rational. You have to treat men who to you are unknown as observed. Your observation pertains to whether or not he is raping someone if not, then you treat him like he is not a rapist. Observation of data would be 1. Is h…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:50 AM
1

I did not consider that angle. I'll respond once I've given it some thought.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:40 AM
1

I completely agree and no one is suggesting the chance is 50% however, when confronted with the feminist idea of Schrodinger's Rapist I suggest presenting a more literal interpretation as an argument so that when you observe someone not raping the default belief should be that they're not a rapist.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:55 PM
1

It is however you're misunderstanding it's use. As an argument it's simply redacted as: There's a chance that a man is a rapist. Not knowing the man one must treat him both as a rapist and as not one until trust is established. I proposed a more literal interpretation wherein you treat anyone as observed I.E. as not a rapist until otherwise proven. Stating that it's a 50% chance would be working with false data which no one is suggesting. A perfect parallel cannot be made.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:52 PM
1

That's because Schrodinger's Rapist is currently viewed in a less literal way where you become a "rapist" if even a whisper of you doing something that could be conceived as sexual harassment is heard. Instead of it being when real and adequate evidence has been reviewed and a conviction has been secured.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:03 PM
1

That was my thought as well however that doesn't work within the argument as regardless to whether one is accused or not one is considered not a rapist until adequate evidence to convict has been observed by a jury.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:51 PM
1

There are a few interesting things about this post as well as some of the comments. In most countries any establishment with a clientele consisting solely of members (in some places called key clubs) have the right to selectively choose members based on any criteria, meaning they are legally allowed to discriminate. However a public domain that is privately owned and where anyone can enter without a membership this is illegal. So gyms as an example. Being in essence a privately owned membership …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:46 PM
1

I'm not sure what you're asking, could you provide an example?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:34 PM
0

You've been both aggressively confrontational and disrespectful. The Internet isn't a dictatorship and you're not it's ruler. Everyone else seemed fine with the title so instead of writing passive-aggressive comments deal with it or move on. How something is perceived is based on how it's presented. Which makes it not just "on me" Your perception of an appropriate title is not the same as mine and you don't dictate how I express myself therefore my title needs no justification. ad hominems doesn…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:17 PM
0

Right, except you seem to have a preconceived idea of why I react the way I do. In reality I don't give a crap about you or your "light criticism" and I don't think you know what the word "blame" means considering that I haven't blamed you for anything. If you want to discuss etiquette then perhaps you shouldn't have missed the point about keeping criticism polite because when you have an issue and direct it with disrespect instead of politely pointing it out, it's more likely that people are ju…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:30 PM
2

A less extreme example could be a woman-guarding, man hating, fire breathing, female dragon which appears to be permanently on her period until she gets "tamed" by some donkey dick? I'm not saying that nothing has an agenda, just that any possible scenario has probably played out in the fictional world and that it doesn't mean we transfer these agendas to the real one.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 12:14 AM
1

An interesting point considering that Sleeping Beauty, the movie in which Maleficent originally starred as the villain was from 1959. So considering that there already arguably is a "Maleficent" movie from 55 years ago which depicts women as incompetent damsels and gave men all the credit, would it then be so bad there there's another made from a different perspective? I don't believe so, though I've admittedly not watched it yet. However I do look forward to seeing it and I hope that Stromberg …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 12:04 AM
1

I have to say that my opinion on politicizing and over-analyzing popular fiction isn't something that we should do. It's a common trend, and a popular one. Especially within the feminist movement. The Disney movies that we used to know and love are in reality patriarchal shackles; binding us in our understanding of gender-roles. Disney moves to promote rape culture as we see Belle kidnapped in Beauty and The Beast and Snow white being kissed against her will while she sleeps... Look. We've all h…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:46 PM
1

Try commenting in a way that doesn't seem confrontational and disrespectful. Thank you.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:09 PM
2

you're welcome
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:04 PM
0

I know, that's why I didn't even know how to react. I've never seen that amount of misinformation and general ignorance gathered in one place.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 05:44 AM
1

Thank you very much!
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:36 AM
1

exactly.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:22 AM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/28meb5/woman_gets_mad_rips_off_sons_scrotum_doesnt_go_to/
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:05 AM
1

If you have any sources I would very much like to read that. In any regard. One must assume that if shelters are being forced to open up to men, then that means there will be less room for women and it that case it can still be viewed as detrimental to women.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 12:03 AM
1

I don't believe it should be a zero-sum games as effort should be appropriated according to need, but currently the statistics suggest that domestic abuse victims are equally gendered and therefore efforts to help should be equal as well.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:54 PM
5

Not exactly what I was saying, but I find it improbable that funding will be released to men that matches the effort to, for example; the funding for women's shelters despite men according to the statistics being just as likely to be the victim of domestic abuse. So if the government cannot find additional funding, some of the already existing funding will have to be transferred from women's shelters if equality is to be achieved.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:52 PM
1

Exactly, I should perhaps also have specified that I don't mean privately funded operations, but as taxpayers men have a right to that funding on equal grounds as women.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:48 PM
1

Thinking about it I must say that you're absolutely right. It's not the rights in themselves that would suffer, but more likely the availability.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:46 PM
9

The interesting part from my perspective is that the comment your links skips to by Arthur K. tries to re-frame the issue. He say's "by insisting that the conversation be about me and other men who have not committed homicide, I have effectively announced that we are more important. Women are being killed? Well, let’s talk about me, and men like me, instead." What he fails to realize is that the responses like "not all men" almost always occur in conjunction to a generalization of all men. We're…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:41 PM
2

The math seems wrong here. The claim is that 1/6 women will be raped so; 100(%) / 6 = 16,66(%) of women will currently get raped. (according to the claim) It seems the Anon mistook the decline in rape by 85% to mean that 85%(The decline) + 16,66%(The current claim) = 101,66(%) The actual number would be completely different because in reality you need to calculate how much of a decrease 85% is to the 16,66% that is current. So you take the 16,66(%) * 0,85 = 14,161% and then you have the decrease…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:11 PM
2

Thanks, I'll check it out.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 11:14 PM
3

I see what you mean, and yes. That too, but I hope that us being here. Telling people that there is nothing to be ashamed of. That anyone who wish to make a mockery of men who has suffered because of this issue should do so with the understand that there are people here who will call them on their bullshit. Who will get angry, who will raise their voice and yell at them so others can speak knowing they are not alone.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 08:32 AM
1

Not really a mens issue. A mistake was made, it can happen to anyone. Hopefully compensation will be given as is deemed appropriate. As for JohnKimble111's comment. It's not really relevant what a woman would get. Being flippant i might suggest that it's hard to perform a vasectomy on a women, but considering the more invasive nature of female sterilization, the fact that it's much harder to reverse and the increased complications it can cause, It would not only be expected, but also correct to …
/r/MensRights06/05/14 11:06 PM
3

Selv tak. Håber at debatten fortsætter. Too wierd didn't understand: You're welcome, I hope the debate continues.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 09:02 AM
8

As a Dane, I find the arguments for the continued use of this practice both childish and without reasoning. Most arguments for the practice depend on the cultural and religious traditions, that if we are to believe the debaters cannot simply be stripped from people, however that is not what is attempted. We're not saying make circumcision illegal. We're saying let them decide for themselves. If Abraham was 99 years-old when he was circumcised surely we can wait for the children to grow and decid…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 08:24 AM
1

There is a problem with this, but while the perceived problem is "women get their own hotel floor" the actual reason for why it was discriminatory was the there were a qualitative service being offered to a specific gender while being denied to another. In other words; The hotel needs to be able to offer the same quality service to both genders. They could've created an equal floor for men, they could've created the rooms after the same quality standarts as the rest of the rooms, they could have…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 08:51 PM
1

I agree completely, but it's been suggested consistently that men are better than women at cognitive thinking, this doesn't mean that men are more intelligent than women, just that being a man makes you better at that aspect of intelligence, whereas woman are better at other aspects of intelligence. Yet suggesting it continues to provoke strong aggressive reactions from (primarily) feminists and women.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:24 PM
1

You got what I meant, but I don't think it's as simple as saying that we're diluting our power and wealth by letting women vote and work. That seems to be a very women vs. men standpoint to argue from, rather than that I'd say that by making voting and working accessible for every individual, we should also equalize other aspects of society such as the selective services. That means that it's either mandatory for everyone or no one.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:21 PM
2

Kind of in the same way that when the issue of morality on the selective services is being raised. Many feminists choose to sign up in order to "equalize" a standard that many consider wrong (That it's forced upon men) instead of working with men to abolish the policy and make selective services voluntary?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:47 PM
1

I get what you're saying, but doesn't the need to have something that another has and which isn't an object equate to needing to be like that person? To possess the same qualities isn't imitation a necessity?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:48 PM
0

I agree with you fully, but I also mean it in an intellectual regard. It's earlier been established that men has between 3-5 IQ points more than women of equivalent age. It's long been debated that males may be better at logical and cognitive thinking.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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