TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Deimos_F Archive

View 1 posts and 34 comments by Deimos_F 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)
170

Social IssuesDeimos_F/r/MensRights11/07/15 03:31 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

That last bit brings up an important point that I never hear social activists chanting about: the fact that often people are not able to pursue justice for financial reasons. That's unacceptable, and changing it would have a huge impact in social equality.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 02:07 PM
19

The way these things are worded always infuriates me. Right off the bat they pose the question of whether we should stop doing this procedure which has questionable benefits. I mean, even if you ignore the downsides, the fact that the benefits are questionable by itself should be sufficient. "Should we continue cutting off a part of kid's bodies routinely, even if it barely has any health benefits?". The answer seems pretty self evident. And the way they touch on the hygiene argument, making it …
/r/MensRights25/06/18 11:44 AM
2

I agree, I was just stating the current status quo, not defending it.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:44 PM
16

It does, but for men the "crossroads" happens before sex, and for women after. Which means no man can actually enjoy sex safely with peace of mind, because it's basically gambling away control over your life, no matter how little the odds.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:29 PM
165

Or you could just point out that if the quoted gap (...) is actually the difference for women in the same job, with the same skills and working the same hours was even remotely close to being true with females being over 20% cheaper to hire, male unemployment would be huge and females would have replaced them in all fields long ago. It's a retarded argument that crumbles at the slightest inkling of logical analysis.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 12:04 PM
72

She must really like anal.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 02:54 PM
3

Vaginer Louis CK says that's how they teach it in Boston.
/r/MensRights02/08/17 05:07 AM
15

Because of his evil penis.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 08:09 AM
4

Still, the argument that circumcision should be employed to reduce the number of HIV cases makes as much sense as suggesting people cauterize their eyes to reduce the incidence of pink-eye. There's no reason to be chopping off parts of people's bodies when condom use and blood tests are proven to be more than sufficient to halt the spread of HIV. Or are you suggesting that even though a lot of the population in those areas is so stubborn they refuse to use a condom, it would be much simpler to c…
/r/MensRights15/08/16 11:18 PM
8

As an EU citizen, I'm surprised to hear I live amidst an HIV epidemic.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 09:27 PM
11

Just for the sake of clarity regarding the mutilation, it's not "nearly all boys in the 'civilized' west", it's mostly the USA. Not trying to be a prick or anything, I just think the issue does not gain anything from inaccurate information.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 05:01 PM
13

The verb is not conjugated. Though he did miss a comma.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:12 AM
1

Frankie Boyle Don't know his work. How is it?
/r/MensRights09/02/16 01:47 AM
2

Much like Jeselnik, I find his jokes lack momentum. They are smarter jokes, but the punchlines remain nonetheless weak.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 09:35 PM
5

I'm European. I'm a huge fan of stand-up comedy, and since there's not much of a stand-up comedy scene here (maybe due to the language barriers) I basically gravitated towards the UK and US comedians. Here's a list of comedians I enjoy: Louis C.K. An absolute master of moral deconstruction. He will take you in a journey of self-depreciation and dead-baby jokes, and you will love every second of it. He will spill out his guts, all of his anxiety, fear, and hatred, and he will point at them and la…
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:12 PM
8

Dear John, I'm bored. Goodbye forever.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 02:56 AM
1

Fossil fuels, middle east, wars. Connect the dots. They are related.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 12:27 PM
3

Any idea when it is coming out?
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:18 PM
8

just because it's not fair does not mean it is wrong In a democratic society, that is a severe contradiction. Let's make one thing clear: western law views ejaculation as a transaction, and the woman is free to handle the sperm any way she deems fit. There is legal precedent for this, and it is not being questioned. We are merely stating that the man should not be held responsible for any consequences of her handling of the sperm. This is the developed world in the 21st century, and technology p…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 11:10 PM
2

When I say "the author's" I don't mean the OP's link author, but the author of the hypothetical text. I'll tweak it a bit.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 07:29 PM
3

I also found it funny how she made a point of opening the text with a detailed mention of the essay she was working on, followed by a quip about having to stop everything she was doing. Desperate for intellectual validation much? The most idiotic text in the world could mention its author's Nobel prize, that sort of fluff does not validate an invalid statement. Edit: tweaked it a bit
/r/MensRights18/08/15 06:30 PM
1

It's perfectly possible, yes. I didn't mention it specifically because I was not sure. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes phrase my arguments in a sort of "open ended" format like that. I only make solid statements on issues that I myself have done some research and am sure of what I'm talking about. I haven't been doing a lot of that research because I have other stuff going on irl. Just trying to keep it as factual as I can :)
/r/MensRights14/07/15 11:52 PM
0

I'm not saying men are raped more often. All I know is that ads like these are not uncommon, and the men is always the villain. This only helps accentuate inter-gender mistrust and hostility.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 04:35 PM
2

What you are describing is an incapacitated person. As I stated, incapacitated people are indeed unable to consent. But you seem to believe that state settles in right after the first beer, since you mentioned being drunk, and being stumbling and slurring, as equivalent states when it comes to ability to consent. Not only is that incorrect, it is also besides the point. So we are back to the original argument. Why does the poster immediately imply that the female was the one stumbling and slurri…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:51 PM
3

Alcohol inebriation does not change your propensity to accept being raped. If someone is aggressive towards an inebriated person, that person will still be able to discern that aggression and state their lack of consent. The ability to react to that aggression only disappears at the point of incapacitation, and that is why sex with any incapacitated person is rape, since there is no longer an ability to state consent or lack thereof. What you are referring to is possibly the lowering of moral re…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 05:22 PM
2

You are equating things in a way that would only make sense if both parties were ingesting the exact same volume of the exact same drinks. It will always be almost impossible to find two people, regardless of gender, who react the same way to alcohol, either physiologically or neurologically/psychologically. Therefore, people should know their own limits and manage their alcohol intake accordingly. That is why bringing up comparisons between people's ability to process alcohol implies the people…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 05:09 PM
2

On the subject of law and the way it works, and overlooking the several assumptions you mentioned, do not forget one of the most essential cornerstones of law in the western world: Presumption of innocence.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 11:30 AM
7

*some men Many ethnicities do not carry that gene. And also, you are still arguing under the assumption that a woman is not able to discern and decide on the amount of alcohol she ingests. Women can think for themselves, they are perfectly capable of deciding on their actions and be held responsible for them. Women are not damsels in distress.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 11:27 AM
4

Someone has to be responsible. Sure. Each of those individuals is responsible for their own inebriation and involvement in the actions that followed. Two drunk people having sex does not constitute rape, it constitutes drunk people being drunk, much like DUIs are not dismissed due to the person "being in a state of impaired judgment". Unless someone forces you to chug alcohol to the point of inebriation, you retain responsibility for your own actions, because ultimately, it was your choice to dr…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 11:16 AM
24

The thing is, they are trying to make it sound like the customers wanted her to leave because she's a woman, and not because of her atrocious policies and overall lack of ability to run this site.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 09:16 PM
25

Of course we can be believed, but we are not. Because of our gender. Go figure.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:20 PM
70

A book that goes against the now-standard narrative? Doubt it's even mentioned.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:16 PM
4

Oh boy, that was a stern remark. I hope no one in the audience felt... triggered.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 06:42 AM
6

If I get drunk, grab a gun, and shoot someone, I'm responsible for my actions. If I get drunk, get in a car, and run someone over, I'm responsible for my actions. I am responsible, because no one forced me to get drunk in the first place. I put myself in that situation, so the outcome is on my head. but If a woman gets drunk, and goes on to have sex with someone, she cannot be held responsible for her own actions, because apparently she cannot be trusted to conduct herself and decide whether or …
/r/MensRights03/06/15 12:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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