TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ChaosLFG Archive

View 1 post and 91 comments by ChaosLFG 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)
0

ChaosLFG/r/MensRights05/02/12 07:24 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

To be completely fair, shouldn't we use a neutral source on the debate, rather than feminist or MRA leaning sources? Politifact. Cited, with most angles of the issue discussed, including the issues with the 77 cents figure and differences when corrected for career and hours worked.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 05:44 AM
1

I've never really thought about impersonation as rape in great detail. I'd say definitely if you impersonate a friend of the victim/famous person/someone the victim had prior knowledge of. Really, what I'm hung up on is the situation where a person married a spy and then called it rape after she found out he was a spy. Everyone has good and bad qualities; growing to dislike someone despite consenting to them earlier doesn't change the fact that you consented earlier.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:07 AM
2

Yep, left this out after a second read. Added it already, someone else mentioned it too. Definitely rape; as soon as consent is withdrawn, sex needs to stop.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:01 AM
1

What someone tells you doesn't change what you communicated to the other person, or what the other person knew/didn't know at the time. Of course, if you didn't remember you were raped, and assumed the person you woke up next to was a bad decision, you were still raped. It's hard to prove situations like this though, and some sort of drug test/rape kit should be done asap.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:00 AM
1

Oh, yep. I wasn't very thorough, I know. If one person consents and then no longer consents, and the other person stops, that's not rape, but could be middle category, depending on the first person's experience. If consent is withdrawn, 100% agreed, that's rape.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:51 AM
1

Yes. I agree. Because people thought that sort of thing was sane; people of all genders propagated the idea that women were for babies and men were for war. Men believed they were doing their "civic duty." Women wanted to be housewives. Everyone continued (and still continue) the mass insanity that is judgment based on the circumstances of birth.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:49 AM
1

No, of course they shouldn't be able to claim rape simply because they can't remember if they consented. However, I don't think the answer is to make a crime out of having sex while drinking.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:43 AM
1

I don't know if I agree with this; people should be able to sleep together with or without alcohol, granted they aren't completely wasted and consent is shared.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:42 AM
1

Eh, I'm a feminist and I think that kind of thinking is ridiculous. A person's physical sex has nothing to do with their actions (outside of the obvious, such as childbirth and semen production). EDIT: Also, I think when both partners are drunk, yep, middle.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:40 AM
1

I think everyone has a right to a pleasant and enjoyable life. What I'm saying is that work would be a "have-more" option, not a "you get the same if you work or don't work" option. I think having the basic needs for survival, a place to live and a small amount of disposable income isn't too much to give, but would leave room for a desire for more, as well. This isn't something we have, though. There might be excellent welfare options in some states and districts, but where I live in particular …
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:37 AM
1

The thing is--I don't think everyone would simply stop working. Working would be a means to luxury, rather than a means to survival. It's as you said with older people--people would want something to do, and some of them would choose helping society progress. I don't really think it's the same as getting a rich inheritance or not--people would have basics for survival, but those who wanted more could seek out work to gain more. They would still have what the freeloaders have, but they would also…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:47 AM
66

Feel free to comment, debate--we're all here to learn and figure out these things. My personal opinion is as follows: Rapist Situations. The key is the knowledge of non-consent, and continuing. When you fuck someone who says no. When you fuck someone who can't say no, and who you know can't say no. For example, they're sleeping and you know it. When you fuck someone who doesn't understand what's going on, and you know this. For example, they're too young to consent, or they're piss drunk--and yo…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:39 AM
4

Also, some people don't shut the fuck up about how sexuality is a fundamental part of human nature and how I'm missing out on so much stuff and blah blah blah. Those people are really annoying. Reddit should have a solution when you're spamming the upvote button, but all it does is flicker. :|
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:30 AM
2

I think this branches out a bit beyond just gender egalitarian issues, and into a lot of the flawed thinking we have as a society relating to our formerly agrarian society. It used to be extremely important for everyone to work in order to sustain society, but as technology advances, that may not be the case--advances in agriculture ensuring our food supply, the cost effectiveness of public housing, et cetera. We could give the time needed for maternity/paternity leave, and then some, but we as …
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:23 AM
5

Simultaneous oppression does not cancel itself out. The forced conscription of men doesn't cancel out the lack of human rights of women, nor the other way around.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:14 AM
2

I've come to accept that /r/MensRights has a very specific definition for feminism, disregarding the fact that feminism is divided into many branches, all on very different places on the scale of sanity.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:11 AM
2

Wasn't it someone else that claimed circumcision was worse than rape in the first place, igniting this whole debate?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 11:19 PM
2

I fail to see how harassing someone who disagrees with you into leaving is a net positive. If anything, it breeds the circlejerk culture that the internet is known for.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:59 PM
1

... My original claim that objective conclusions can't be made about subjective things? You mentioned a hangnail and an amputated finger. The experiences will be subjective from person to person, as I stated and as you've repeated. These two are not directly analogous to rape and circumcision. These are two situations where the greatest impact is physical harm and impairment. Rape and circumcision both have powerful emotional impact that cannot be quantitatively measured. Calling someone you're …
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:54 PM
1

You didn't tell her to go fuck herself, you brought up her rape as if it were a positive thing. Again, you ignore the question: What positive outcome could your comment have possibly had?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:28 PM
1

A baby should not lose their rights because of their parents' belief system.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:27 PM
3

You didn't answer a single question I asked. I didn't ask for your reasons why she was an asshole, I'm asking why you think your belittlement of rape would help the situation at all--not only in your interaction with her, but with the other rape victims who I'm sure are reading this thread. How is it at all okay to make out the rapist's actions as positive, also?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:06 PM
1

This is what's called a false analogy. You're comparing two similar things with measurable medical and financial impact. Rape and circumcision cannot be as readily compared.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:02 PM
2

Your personal experience is not going to be shared by every circumcised individual in the world. Individuals have a right to bodily integrity. This right isn't taken away because their parents want them to look socially acceptable.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:32 AM
0

It's more about the line between hating someone, and letting that hate completely devour your life. Yes, this is a terrible thing. But if two years after you've moved out of the house and cut all contact, you're thinking about this person and how to possibly get back at them, it's going to interfere with your own happiness. Forgiving is absolutely not about the other person. Fuck them. You don't have to ever forgive them. But revenge, though glorified and awesome and hip and cool and shit, doesn…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:27 AM
1

I think the major issue is that you can't reach an objective "greater" or "lesser" when comparing two subjective things.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:20 AM
0

The not remembering is bullshit, but you can't really compare two subjective experiences and give them a quantitative "greater" or "lesser" value. If you're going to get mad at someone, you should also get mad at the first person to do so.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:17 AM
1

It's sad that anyone can do this and get away without repercussions.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:14 AM
3

If it's not funny, why joke about it? Why joke about an actual occurrence of rape, directly to the victim's face? People who are assholes deserve to have the bad occurrences in their lives mocked? In what way does being an asshole back fix anything? How does it do anything but encourage said person to get angrier?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:11 AM
3

Haha, rape is funny! I get it! A+!
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:32 PM
0

No, we were talking about 1920, when women still had fewer rights. Forced enlistment is still wrong, will always be wrong, and shouldn't happen. But that doesn't mean that forced enlistment in any way "makes less of" the historical lack of rights which women faced, while men did not. They're. Both. Wrong. And to claim that it's a fight against random asshole feminists on reddit, just as the original comment in this thread did, and then apply that retarded logic to all feminists, is just the same…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:36 AM
0

That's the whole point. Any asshole with a computer can cherry-pick a bunch of quotes, and associate them with a group. Look, right there--MRAs being lumped in as misogynists. I am a feminist. You can stick your fingers in your ears, but I am a feminist who advocates for the banning of circumcision, MUCH better support for male rape victims (how is this still a fucking issue in 2012?), an abolition of the idea that to share one's emotions is weak, a large factor (in my eyes) to the male suicide …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:18 AM
0

My point is that men still ruled over women. The rights for citizens were incomplete, and forced enlistment is wrong, but women were denied most fundamental human rights (most of all, personal agency). This isn't a pissing contest, but for the OP to make a statement about how it's men fighting back against women's oppression is just a tiny bit ridiculous.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:01 AM
0

I'm not too sure.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:57 AM
-1

Cringing at the thought of something and taking the position that it should be censored are two very different things. I wouldn't censor, well, basically anything.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:56 AM
0

Top of my head. How about this? Either way, link is rather irrelevant to the point I was making.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:36 AM
1

That's the story. What's the reality? May I suggest you read Warren Farrell. He makes better arguments than most feminists. The reality is that (as an American) we couldn't vote until 1920. And how much earlier were most men granted the vote? Hint: it's not "forever". Another hint: Women and blacks can both be discriminated against at the same time. * In 1790, white males with property rights were allowed to vote. * In 1810, religious restrictions were removed. * In 1915, literacy tests which we…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:31 AM
-2

Here is a list of cherry-picked men's rights advocate quotes from SRS. I don't have a list of prominent ones, as MRA is a smaller movement, and I hardly spend time trying to prove that MRAs are all a misogynistic hate movement. But do you really want to align yourself with them? Of course you don't, because they don't accurately represent MRAs, and neither do a list of feminists for feminism. Also, why do you care about who people associate you with? People who judge others by association, rathe…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:56 AM
1

Don't think this one's going to learn much no matter how much you talk at him. Just saying.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:25 AM
0

The comment he was replying to implied that the feminists were the aggressors and that MRAs are the reactors, when in fact feminism originated as a response inequality under the law (primarily voting rights).
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:23 AM
0

I'm not sure. I don't appreciate how Kanuk phrases his questions, either--"How much earlier were most men granted the vote?" sounds a bit too much like, "Other people were suffering, so don't complain." No, all of that shit was pretty wrong, it isn't a pissing contest. ... Which the women would probably lose. Because penises seem to be able to like... Yeah, I thought I'd make a joke but now I'm trying to avoid thinking about pee.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:17 AM
0

The first paragraph is the issue--it assumes that feminism aligns itself with certain ideals, but that premise is incorrect. Would anybody dispute that feminism is a socio-political movement on behalf of women? Originally, yes, as feminism is the new title for the women's liberation movement, which aimed primarily at assuring voting and property rights, amongst other legal rights. And then there was second wave feminism, which started out aiming to change cultural views of women, particularly in…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:13 AM
1

If this article weren't such shit, I'd have another link to send people when they claim men can't get raped.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:49 PM
1

I know what they're talking about, but you have to admit that generalizing about feminism according to a subset of feminists (radical ones, at that) is at least a little similar to generalizing about r/mensrights as only people who rag on feminists and want to piss people off. You see that, and you go, "... No?" But we get stuck in this us vs. them mentality and see only what confirms what we want to think about the other side, so we can keep hating them. And it's spreading. r/genderegalitarian'…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:23 PM
0

Because the specific situation in mind I'd post (an ex who was a lazy piece of shit) would promote the lazy piece of shit male stereotype. Really, the earlier post was a bit knee jerk of me, but I believe a few things about not just equal rights for genders, but about change overall: Stupid people are stupid. Period. Even on reddit, there are a lot of stupid people. In order for change to occur, said stupid people have to be pushed into thinking that the change is good, because as much as it suc…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:17 PM
4

What a fucking petty asshole. There has to be something you can do--a restraining order, or something. E: What state do you live in?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:58 PM
2

I just can't resist.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:48 PM
-1

By gendering it as a woman when man is the "norm" on the internet, you promote the idea that it's only women who do that, when in actuality men are just as capable of being inconsiderate in that manner.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:46 PM
1

No no, that's the point. I replied to some of the posts that made an assumption about feminists with the quote, as a way to show how many times an assumption was made. Quoting something doesn't make it untrue, and "they systematically hate men and could no longer handle the cognitive dissonance when they claimed not to yet in every instance would move against men" is a pretty big assumption.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:44 PM
1

Another hint: Women and blacks can both be discriminated against at the same time. In 1790, white males with property rights were allowed to vote. In 1810, religious restrictions were removed. In 1915, literacy tests which were being used to exclude blacks were removed. In 1920, women were granted the right to vote. Women have been disallowed citizenship and rights. Blacks were forced into slavery. "Witches" were burned at the stake. But you wouldn't say one is okay because the other is still go…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:36 PM
2

Some common stereotypes which are absolutely helpful: Men who show emotion are weak. Black people steal. Asians have small penises and can't drive. Trans women will fuck you in the ass. Women who play video games are attention whores. Indians are all rain dancers.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:20 PM
1

My comment was a direct response to another person, and on topic. What I stated is a fact, women could not vote in America until 1920.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:15 PM
0

Not sure if trolling. Why do you hate me? Can you actually explain it?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:13 PM
-2

You know, as a feminist and an MRA, I avoid subreddits like this, not because I don't agree with gender egalitarianism efforts, but because on each subreddit, they make constant assumptions about me.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:24 AM
4

You know, as a feminist and an MRA, I avoid subreddits like this, not because I don't agree with gender egalitarianism efforts, but because on each subreddit, they make constant assumptions about me.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:23 AM
-1

You know, as a feminist and an MRA, I avoid subreddits like this, not because I don't agree with gender egalitarianism efforts, but because on each subreddit, they make constant assumptions about me.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:23 AM
-5

The reality is that (as an American) we couldn't vote until 1920.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:22 AM
-6

Because that person is retarded, and is being used to represent women. I'm not a retard, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop associating me with one.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:20 AM
1

That's exactly what he's getting at. People just assume that.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:09 AM
1

Are you fucking kidding me?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:08 AM
3

This, right here. Stupid people are not worth your time. You'll have to deal with them enough at work and what not--don't let them seep into your personal life.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:06 AM
26

What tables? I'm biologically female and I already do all this shit. EDIT: I know you're responding to a list I can't find, but reading it over, it feels kind of like I'm being talked down to, as a female.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:03 AM
4

This shit pisses me off to no end. The use of "cis" as an insult, or claiming all men are "pigs" or something else derogatory, or the way the non-neurotypical community thinks neurotypicals are somehow lesser for not going through the same struggles. Because as a transgendered, biologically female person with ADHD, this shit is part of the reason so much misinformation is still out there. And I'd really love it if people would stop assuming that I'm taking Adderall because I'm a "lazy piece of s…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:50 AM
7

Are you implying that stupid people should be punished with rape...?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:37 AM
1

Thanks. :)
/r/seduction14/03/12 09:31 PM
3

There was a sweeping generalization about pick-up artists at the beginning which I don't agree with. However, the rest of the comic, panel 2 and onward, is spot on. Reducing someone's self-esteem is wrong. It has a direct, negative impact on them as an individual. Also, I understand the thinking behind most of the comments, when you get all heteronormative, but as a woman who's done most of the chasing in her life, I think there's a lot of misconceptions about how women look at this sort of thin…
/r/seduction14/03/12 07:56 PM
1

If I missed something, feel free to point it out.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:45 AM
3

Because the OP didn't use any double-standards, and in fact encouraged women to take responsibility if they want equal rights...?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:01 AM
3

So why respond to the OP with that?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:53 AM
5

Then what was the purpose of your reply?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:37 AM
4

Your post, taken literally, rather than as the sarcasm it is, is misandrous. Posting it as a response to the OP implies that your message is what you gleaned from the post.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 01:44 AM
1

No is a word. Not my bag, but I'm sure its lots of peoples' bags. Who cares? As for my marginally related comment of the day, uh. Dat shit hurts when you're under 5'0. Just putting that out there. >.>
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:44 PM
1

I can't fucking believe some people. Do you see those comments?
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:25 PM
5

She never mentioned any of those points. She didn't even mention rape at all, or special protections, or abuse of power. In fact, she made the case that it was important for women to accept responsibility if they want to be included. You can't just assume her point is misandrous because she's against misogyny. That's exactly the problem with feminism and men's rights--we're too stuck arguing with each other to get anywhere.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:01 PM
4

I don't understand the outrage. Asking for counsel from a man means she was unsure about her point and wanted to make a stir. Sure, she sought counsel to make sure she wasn't over the top. Is that wrong? Are we never supposed to ask for help, or to ask others to check ourselves when we realize that we're dealing with an issue with which we have a personal stake? When you want strength not to matter - Women can do everything men can! Gender is a social construct! It is sexist to assume men can do…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:00 PM
2

Except for us, it's less embarrassing and more a reason to fantasize. ;)
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:25 AM
2

Probably. Even without having friends who are as open about their sexuality as mine, though, it kind of figures that, if I can get aroused in the middle of my social studies class (which is just about the most boring, unracy situation imaginable for a kid that age), so can my male equivalent. Just takes a little thinking about.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:01 AM
3

Thanks for the kind words. People realize there's an injustice, but they're still stuck seeing it from their point of view. Myself included, really, and it's only due to sad circumstances involving friends of mine, that I've really seen it from the angles which I do. I'm sure there's lots of issues where I still haven't realized my egocentricism, though I can certainly hope otherwise.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 04:16 PM
4

This, this, this. Your answer to number three. God damn did the misunderstandings about this get 2X off my frontpage in about two seconds flat. That and the ridiculous stink about the term female.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 06:56 AM
4

Eh, it was a bit of luck, really. I enjoy r/mensrights and r/feminism, but both of them are entirely too focused one one side of the issues or the other. We as a reddit culture seem to fall into self-centered idealism, applying the rules of equality and justice where it most benefits us. I can't say I haven't done the same, but I do avoid it when possible, and reading such subreddits together definitely gives me more perspective than I would have had otherwise. Especially r/feminism and r/2x, fo…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 06:51 AM
1

Eh, true. But I think domestic abuse and violence say something about the mental state of the abuser, and should be flagged as violence which should be met with rehabilitation. Institutionalized rehabilitation, might I add, to keep them off the streets until they're healthy.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 01:09 AM
3

No, but I think that abuse and violence cases which involve family and spouses should have mandatory psychiatric assessment and possible rehabilitation. Of course, I think the majority of victimed criminal activity should be met with rehabilitation, but that's just me.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 01:07 AM
11

1) Anything which promotes the idea that the victim is partially to blame, be it a female who "wore the wrong thing" or a male who was "too weak to defend themselves," or whatever other bullshit excuses people have to make rape okay. 2) Definitely. We wonder what the victim did to the attacker, or what's worse, in the case of males, ignore them entirely. 3) Definitely, again. More heavily on male victims, I feel, but there is definite victim blaming on both sides. Why? With the males, it's our v…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 01:01 AM
3

I hate the gender bias which is present in the ruling, but I don't think marrying someone automatically makes you entitled to half of what they own. Marital assets? Yes. But bank accounts in their name? Personal property? No. That includes lottery winnings.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:49 AM
16

You do realize that males often get unwanted erections, right?
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:39 AM
5

I hate the term feminist. Technically, I'd be considered a feminist, but I'd also be considered the male equivalent. The idea of being a 'feminist' is so contrary to their goals. Feminists want equality, but right in the name, they're stuck on female issues. Equality and being self-centered are just so... Contrary. Though, I can understand it, historically. When females didn't have equal rights, being a feminist made sense. You were fighting for females, specifically. But that point is over, and…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:34 AM
0

I think that it should stay on the books, only because taking someone's trust and using it to do them harm is just about the worst thing one person can do to another human being. That said, I think someone should be charged with it in addition to whatever crimes they committed.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:30 AM
3

I don't agree with the post, and I don't agree with changes being based on gender lines, but I think the idea itself has some merit. If we could look at each individual, and had the resources to treat on an individual basis, we would find different ways to work past the issues which turned them into an abuser. Ways that would work for them. For some specific, medically examined people, this might mean a less intense treatment program. However, blanket prescribing a lesser degree of treatment bas…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:27 AM
19

Rape itself is more about forced sexual intercourse than the mechanism of action. The current definition excludes male on male forced anal sex, but I think we all know that falls under rape. However, by your logic, it merely being outside the current definition excludes it from being rape. That said, men don't always have control over their erections, and also, a woman can forcibly penetrate a man. They're called fingers. Look them up.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:20 AM
11

I would upvote, but the problem is, some people might read this and believe it. So... :( Sorry.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 12:16 AM
6

You have to admit--it reads like you're claiming females have it worse then males. Can't blame people for getting upset.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 01:08 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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