TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Cyanr Archive

View 1 post and 35 comments by Cyanr 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)
3

Cyanr/r/MensRights29/10/14 02:02 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Why is it you can't understand that? I understand what youre saying, you are just wrong. Speaking condescendingly to me like that isnt gonna make me bother giving a further respond to your post.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:45 AM
1

The government can make laws restricting the press, as they have done before. Do you mean they shouldnt make laws?
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:00 AM
1

So you think they should be allowed to publish child porn, yet I am the one who havent thought it through.. LOL
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:58 AM
0

Now that you just blatantly ignore most of my post, it seems clear you just want the discussion to die. Must be finding proper arguments for your failed opinion, or why else would you suddenly stop responding properly?
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:25 AM
0

Because its based solely on how the media presents sexual assault claims/cases No, it's not. It's based around how the media often presents people accused of wrongdoings. The media have shown time and time again that it's not acting within proper ethics, and the tired argument they always use of being a "watchdog" to have endless freedom falls flat when it's clearly more about selling papers by causing an uproar in the public. In short, the media have proven itself to insufficiently adhere to "i…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:52 PM
1

That's not a wise idea, either. If the defendant isn't public, how do we know the defendant chose to remain private? See the problem? Because the defendant has that right. If you don't trust the system to grant the defendant that law, then there's no reason to trust the system to put the defendant through any sort of public court system. In about one generation we went from smoking, spousal abuse, and drunk driving being culturally acceptable to very unacceptable. The culture changes all the tim…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:32 PM
1

That's quite arbitrary I'd say. Of course I think they should censor stuff like child porn (I say of course, but apparently that is not even a given after talking to you) and of course what I've advocated for here. Explaining where I draw the line is not as simple as drawing a line in the sand. It's a complex answer as there are various ways of censorship that isn't related to the discussion here about anonymity, and you and I would likely rate the importance of the difference subjects different…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:19 PM
1

Because, at least as it relates to criminal defendants, having the names involved be public protects the defendant. Then allow the defendant to make that choice. No, a better solution is to advocate to make sure people understand that innocent until proven guilty means something. Just like we've advocated for other cultural changes. I disagree for the simple reason that such a cultural change would be close to impossible to accomplish, and require way more resources than would be available. The …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:00 PM
0

I'd like to think that knowing child porn should not be published compared to you arguing it should be allowed makes me at least a small bit smarter than you.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:55 PM
1

bye
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:26 PM
1

They're kinda infamous for telling media what they can and can't say which is pretty much what you're advocating. Then I invite you read my past comments again and apologize when you realize that I did nothing near that. Your answer in the other chain will answer this. My answer will answer the question I gave you? Come the fuck on, if you have no intention of participating in good faith just fuck off. I really don't have the patience for discussing with people acting like you.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:18 PM
–

And its denying an individual their right to an open and fair trail. Which could easily be fixed by allowing that individual to decide (within reason of course) the extend that the trail is open. Not sure what you mean by my argument being entirely reactionary?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:16 PM
2

Still avoiding the question. You never gave me a question. You just completely mischaracterized my argument as being "For the children". The problem is where do you limit that? Do the same laws apply to the victim of the crime speaking out on social media / sharing the video evidence that clearly identifies the person's identity to the public at large? No, the same laws would not apply. However laws against vigilantism would to various degrees. You already are not allowed to plaster your social …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:12 PM
1

I can't really answer your questions because one) you compared my opinion to fucking N Korea, which you'll have to explain because it was fucking stupid by you, and two) you seem to have no idea what mass censorship is to you
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:03 PM
–

want a law that would allow these trails to effectively operate in secret. No, I wan't a law that protects innocent people from being witch hunted by the press. The fact that the court system has issues does not change that.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:00 PM
1

I'm sorry to hear that, then.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:57 PM
1

The discussion is literally about whether or not laws should be in place to prevent innocent people from being accused of being pedophiles by the media, you dense motherfucker.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:54 PM
–

I agree, the whole world should emulate N.Korea's media policy. /s Are you being intentionally dense, or just stupid? Well considering you're advocating for mass censorship of the populace as a whole (what is the demarcation point between citizen and media after all) I'm not sure you want to bring ethics into this. What is mass censorship to you? Because in my opinion, I never advocated for anything like that, and it seems like your idea of freedom of speech and what it entails is completely fuc…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:52 PM
1

The press can just say the person is suspected/accused and get off since those are facts? I'm not a lawyer, but from my understanding intent is a big part of it. I think he is saying that libel law is fine since it isn't government doing the censoring Who does he think enacted these laws then? lol
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:39 PM
-1

I hope you don't realize absolute freedom of the press would allow the publishing of stuff like child porn, because otherwise your opinion is honestly insane.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:37 PM
1

But reality is i don't want to give them the right to in the first place because inevitably it will be abused. They already have that right, they just need to enable it by their own votes. Even if you don't trust the government to not abuse the laws, they can still abuse them without your consent. I mean, I wouldn't be a particularely big supporter of the current Trump administration enacting the laws I argue for, simply because I don't trust them to do it faithfully. But I still stand by my opi…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:25 PM
–

Saying it's unconstitutional is not valid because it completely ignores the prior argument, unless of course it's whether or not something is allowed. But in this case we're talking about that should be allowed.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:07 PM
2

You have yet to explain how that would make everything worse.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:04 PM
1

So either you don't realize libel law IS censorship, or you're actually advocating for removing libel law. Which is it?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:02 PM
2

I mean, to various degrees sure. You just can't expect proper ethics to be followed without rules in place.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:57 PM
1

You're right, I'd rather be in a different country than the U.S., and I'm fortunate enough for that to be the case. Just because the country was founded on whatever it doesn't mean that should still be applicable today. There are countries out there that sensor the press & keep anything they want hidden from their citizens..... Which they shouldn't, but as I literally wrote in the post you replied to not everything is a slippery slope. You can have censorship without censoring everything. Did yo…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:54 PM
1

wtf are you trying to say?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:50 PM
9

So you're fine that in other cases false accusations are guaranteed to ruin the lives of others, I just happen to disagree with that.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:08 PM
–

Not everything is a slippery slope for christ sake, but I'd personally disagree quite heavily that the media should be allowed to publish anything. Stuff like fake news that literally claims someone is a pedophile should not be allowed, nor should releasing classified information that is very likely to be harmful to citizens. Neither of those are "far more dangerous" than government censorship, and I'm pretty sure the U.S. already does have laws in place that limit the media.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:05 PM
–

for no good reason. And taking some of that freedom away in favour of avoiding innocent people of being branded pedophiles, murderers and so on, is a particular good reason I'd say.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:59 PM
–

As an outsider, the argument "it's unconstitutional" gets thrown out constantly by Americans as if the constitution is some sacred text that can't be flawed. It's not a good argument to use, though.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:54 PM
–

Interfering with the press is peobably overall making things worse. We mustnt ban the publication of anything. Why should the media be allowed to publish absolutely anything? I think the only solution is for media to decide themselves to not publish accusations. Which they wont, as they wont be able to compete with the media which doesn't give a fuck about those ethics.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:52 PM
2

Not if you subtract by the 5 million illegal votes, which will be factually proven once the research comes out in a week, several months ago!
/r/PussyPassDenied13/08/17 02:57 PM
3

You said men study stuff realted to politics, contextually alluding that men would more likely apply to congress. Yes? He's entirely correct.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/08/17 02:52 PM
5

selecting the most qualified individuals would yield a roughly equal distribution of men and women. Would it though? For many fields it wouldn't because of an overrepresentation of one of the genders. Are politics different?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/08/17 02:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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