TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DorkJedi Archive

View 1 post and 86 comments by DorkJedi 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)
12

Can you reference the law, and his involvement in passing it, please?
/r/MensRights01/07/17 08:37 PM
-4

But still plenty of spare time to pull over random well behaved people for Driving While Black. Maybe it is not manpower, but time management and prioritization issues....
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/17 12:32 AM
3

so where did you steal the A6? ;)
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/17 12:31 AM
4

I'm from a small town, so they just tend to complicate things whenever they're around. small town, big city, no matter. It is all about arrest record and quotas, not keeping the peace or security.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/17 12:30 AM
1

The cop wrote tickets. After viewing the video. Lazy is out, as is any belief that the tickets written were justified.
/r/PussyPass11/08/16 01:17 AM
19

But she will not be charged by the court for her illegal accident causing turn. Thats the pass. If the cop does not issue them a ticket, they are off the hook on that front.
/r/PussyPass10/08/16 02:53 AM
9

I was paying mutually agreed upon and court agreed upon support for a child, paid on time every month. The mother lost her job and was drawing unemployment. She applied for food assistance. As soon as she did, CPS issued a support failure warrant for my arrest. I was not behind on payments, the mother never filed any sort of support complaint. They just issued a warrant for my arrest on their own because she applied for food stamps. I found out because I was in the Marine Corps and they are alwa…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 02:19 AM
3

I can't see someone of her slight stature being able to perform basic combat engineering tasks Probably right, but there are deceptions. I worked with a lady that was tiny. looked like a 12 year old. But she was a rock climber, a very very active one. Strong beyond anything you could believe, and endurance that would not quit.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:10 PM
3

I agree, the content has started to turn to any woman who commits any crime regardless of sentencing. It should be outside the norm of punishment. If the usual is 15 to 20 and she gets 15- not a pussypass. If she gets 3 years probation no time served- no question its a pussypass.
/r/PussyPass13/01/16 08:02 PM
0

"Ha! you stubbed your toe! Bet you wish you still had that septic sucking chest wound!"
/r/MensRights24/12/15 07:11 AM
6

Unless he's so rich that putting him in jail would be unfair because he simply cannot understand the consequences of his actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza#As_a_legal_defense basically, let him off easy because he has always been let off easy and could not grasp that consequences could happen to him.
/r/PussyPass29/09/15 09:08 PM
2

Private schools often go the uniform route. It just does not fly in the US because they would have to provide the uniforms. Saying "you have to go buy this" never flys. Too many poor people can't afford to do that.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 06:59 AM
9

Well, my story is from 1986, so there is that.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 09:42 PM
16

No reason given, but the administration in those days were the uptight suit-and-tie generation, so I guess most likely because shorts are low class.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 08:19 PM
–

So far as I can tell, they banned shorts because they wanted the boys dressed classy and shorts are just low-class. You want me wearing a suit, install some air conditioning! North Texas will reach 100 degrees or more before school gets out for the summer, and is likely still in the 90's when school starts again.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 07:44 PM
–

My school banned shorts for boys. This was in the 80's and air conditioning in a school was unheard of. Girls, however, could still wear skirts above the knee. So I started wearing a skirt to school. They first kicked me out for general indecency, but a little fussing over girls wearing identical skirts put them off that. So they banned boys wearing girls skirts. So I showed up in a dress. So they banned boys wearing girls clothing at all. So I showed up in a kilt. So they un-banned boys shorts.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 07:32 PM
10

Oh yeah, that's definitely exactly what I said... Yet you're not upset at the gross generalizations made above... Lmfao. You obviously have some serious complexes you need to work through. I'd apologize on behalf of whatever feminine figure made you so bitter, but something tells me you probably deserved it. /u/Barracuda00 Wow, you really outed yourself here. So loaded with SJW keywords that it triggered itself.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:41 PM
1

Go over the speed limit for 2 seconds while a bit distracted? Fuck, accidentally dealt cocaine!
/r/PussyPass07/07/15 09:48 PM
1

I explained context. Your decision to ignore it, and even cut it out of your reply says everything.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 07:03 PM
1

When you keep repeating a harmful lie, no matter how much you may believe you are right, you will continue to get called on it.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 06:44 PM
2

Context matters, and you very well know this. I can say "you people stink" to someone that fell in a cesspool just fine, but if I say it to a different group discussing social issues, it will be received very differently even if I later explain I meant the ones that fell in a cesspool from before. The claim that women make less than men is what is being discussed, and the very topic of discussion is the fact that the total averages are being applied as if they are one-to-one salary. You continue…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 06:15 PM
3

Which, in context, is lying by omission. You disregard the evidence that shows your claim is false, making the claim as if it were true anyway. You can claim to be technically correct, but the claim that every human being has one ovary on average is also correct if you ignore the glaring falsehood of it.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 06:02 PM
5

And your failure to do so is called lying by omission.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:26 PM
6

Again, false. Their salaries ARE NOT LESS. A male pediatric nurse makes the same as a female pediatric nurse. Same with every field. if you really want to address the wage gap, strive to get more women working. The gap comes from there being more women working part time than men. And when you compare annual income, of course a part timer makes less than a full time employee.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:25 PM
2

No, you get downvotes for being completely unable to grasp comparative statistics. All women on average make less than all men on average. When compared in like jobs, such as all women in IT vs all men in IT, or all women in manufacturing vs all men in manufacturing they make the same. In some cases they make a slight bit more- usually female dominated fields like nursing or secretarial where the male sampling is statistically too small for comparison.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:22 PM
2

Before you blow on that tube I need you to blow in this one.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 04:29 AM
8

Being extremely just is no vice. You should go read Judge Dredd for a bit and then think about that statement.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 05:41 AM
1

This bill does not allow divorce court custody proceedings. It guarantees shared custody no matter what until a separate hearing can be arranged to prove an unfit parent. That leaves the kids in a dangerous situation due to the single phrase in that bill that says the law supersedes any and all laws that might conflict with it. Such as CPS laws.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 07:42 PM
1

Try reading my responses again. I have said it is an issue that needs to be fixed. This bill was defective and made things worse- that is why it was opposed. The name of the bill and the effect of the bill are two entirely different things.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 05:31 PM
0

No one around to read it to ya, huh? Keep searching, I am sure you can find a paid political hack that will be more than happy to tell you what to think.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 12:08 AM
0

They state their reasons, and they are very logical. Find someone who can read and have them read it to you.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 09:52 PM
1

you missed by quite a bit. Liberty viral is not the ACLU. I gave you a link directly to the ACLU statement on the ballot.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 09:40 PM
2

Sad, but true. very faulty application of the "interest of the child" doctrine.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 09:11 PM
1

<citation needed>
/r/MensRights22/01/15 09:10 PM
3

rather than read that guy's take, why not read the ACLU's? http://www.aclund.org/measure-6-puts-parents-first-kids-second.html That bill is not what you seem to think it is. On the surface it does seem to be equal rights. In the wording, it takes away the courts ability to determine custody based on the actual parental ability. It is an issue that needs fixing in many if not most locations. This was a heavy handed and poorly considered solution.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 09:10 PM
2

Why would the ACLU oppose it?
/r/MensRights22/01/15 05:37 AM
17

No. She points at the richest man she knows and says "he's the daddy!" And it is up to him to prove he is not. Meanwhile payments are due.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 05:36 AM
1

NO, but if you are accused of being a glutton, it does not make you not a glutton to claim someone force-fed you.
/r/PussyPass28/12/14 10:16 PM
12

They are brown and do not have oil. That puts them in the same group so far as the US is concerned.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:16 PM
2

"Don't believe every quote you read on the Internet" -Abraham Lincoln
/r/MensRights05/11/14 08:51 PM
3

It has popped several times. I assume some SJW attack campaign posting it in top threads.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 11:53 PM
1

Sounds like the wife needs to masturbate.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:10 PM
1

Future employer calls to verify last employment. "isn't that the guy that went to prison for raping a subordinate?" "thank you for your application, but the position has been filled." meanwhile, the accuser gets another call center job based on her previous experience and a glowing reccomendation that HR gave "that poor girl".
/r/MensRights17/11/13 11:39 PM
2

Of course not. After proving we are not divorced (think about that... how do you show a non-divorce decree?) they just dropped the charges without a word.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 03:09 PM
3

I think you mis-read it. I never blamed her, it was the food stamp office and court that fucked up.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:51 AM
8

He is me. And my entire paycheck went to my family, thank you very much. There is only so much you can do with $10k a year.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:27 PM
1

No. I had a small allotment to myself for spending cash ($50/mo IIRC). The entire paycheck went to our bank, which she used.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:25 PM
5

Mandatory, I was told, if a single mother files for any benefits. It is assumed that she had to file because the deadbeat is not paying support. Someone flagged her as single as the "father was not present or available". Caveat: this was the very early 90's. This may have changed since then.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:43 PM
17

Eventually they dropped the warrant after a lot of "just pay your fucking child support" letters and speeches. Repeatedly pointing out we are still married and I have no child support phased none.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:26 PM
51

A good summary of my letter to the state.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:44 PM
63

It's got a knee-jerk component to it. My wife filed for food stamps when our son was an infant. The food stamp office filed deadbeat dad paperwork against me and a judge issued a bench warrant for non-payment of child support. We were not divorced, I was in the Marines serving in Desert Storm as an E3 being paid about $10k a year.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:24 PM
12

A close friend had to sue for custody after his divorce. the court awarded primary custody to the mother- who was institutionalized for trying to kill him and his child.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:23 PM
8

Well, yea... now it is since they killed my father and overthrew us!
/r/MensRights28/01/13 10:01 PM
1

And I am trying to correct you misconceptions of the law. The law has failed on this, and needs to be fixed. there should never be a second DUI for anyone, much less the half dozen or so that is the norm. Or the 41 that a rap star is still walking around free on. The first should be a life prison sentence for attempted murder. IF you get parole, conditions of that parole is if you ever drive, parole revoked. The habitual DUIs are off the street, and a lot fewer people will do it in the first pla…
/r/MensRights27/01/13 03:27 PM
1

And... so you are saying that when married contracts are even more restrictive? This counters my point, how?
/r/MensRights26/01/13 04:21 PM
2

How dare he talk back. The sheer affrontery of an adult talking back! You are an entitled twat, plain and simple. Talked back. Wow.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 01:46 AM
-5

I have to ask: is English not your primary language, or are your reading skills simply horrendous? I ask because you make this reply 7 layers into a discussion of how adding women to the draft-making it equal for all- motivates everyone to eliminate the draft. I can only assume you somehow fail to grasp the entirety of the conversation. The only other conclusion possible is that you have the IQ of a kumquat, and then you would be unable to operate a keyboard.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 01:33 AM
1

On what basis? It seems counter-productive to exempt a person from protection under the law based on marital status.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:49 PM
1

Ahh. So when I enter you in to a contract, I just need it to state clearly "this is not a contract" so that contract law does not apply?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 05:21 PM
1

What do we call an agreement between two or more people?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 04:08 PM
1

And if the law says a contract entered under duress is invalid, does spousal agreement trump that anyway? You do see where this is headed, don't you? The argument was duress, the judge agreed and voided the contract. Back to step 1 and I have defeated a lawyer in an argument.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 02:12 AM
1

So, as a lawyer you are stating for the record that a contract supersedes law? May I have your card so I never ever hire your incompetent ass?
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:46 PM
0

Since you seem so sure of yourself, I take it you're a lawyer?
/r/MensRights18/01/13 03:29 PM
0

Incorrect. A contract is a contract. Contractual law applies. A contract cannot negate or supersede law, nor is it valid if signed under duress.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 04:32 PM
1

Nothing left to discuss. contract was signed under duress. Judge agreed.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 01:52 AM
1

Please define duress. Then re-think what you are saying.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 01:12 AM
1

See, when you talk about a different topic, you need to go to that topic to do it. This one is about a judge overturning a marriage contract thus enabling the divorcing wife to go after half of the mutual assets. Not sure which article you are discussing.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:24 PM
1

No, not at all. It's sign now or lose the house now, to match the analogy. Your injection of re-financing is not in the picture.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:08 PM
0

She is already entitled to half of the mutual property. This means the net worth gained while married. She would have to fight to get the inheritance sent to her husband in a divorce. A trust protects this. It is not a control freak thing t0o do this, it is a normal thing. Forcing a person to enter a contract against their will is a control freak thing.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 09:39 PM
-2

Or he could put it in trust to his bloodline without the drama of this contract. he didn't. He chose to make her sign under duress. You don't have to agree or like it. The definition is clear and the judge ruled on that. The old man was a control freak and fucked himself in the pursuit of that control. A trust would have made it a non issue.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 02:11 AM
-2

He is CEO of a major corporation (millions per year in cash, millions of year in stock bonuses). This income alone accumulates far more than she was settled with. I am not arguing that she is right, I am arguing that she is entitled by law to half of that wealth by law without that forced contract. (inheritance aside- that is harder to gain entitlement to) She challenged the contract as entered under duress. This was upheld. It is not a men vs women law imbalance issue. I am sympathetic to this …
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:09 AM
-1

Same scenario but no prenup, what then? As for who deserves the profits, no one really does. No one worked for that, it was simply grown by fund managers. Who is entitled to it? Both are, equally. The point of this case is challenging the duress used in placing the contract that limits her- placed 16 years after they were married.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:29 PM
-1

It depends on the marital assets. It's pretty easy to defend inheritance form divorce when you are otherwise wealthy. She is entitled to half of what the total family worth changed by from marriage to divorce. So, if their wealth went up $100M aside from the inheritance in those 30 years, she should get $50M.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:11 PM
2

I agree here. It should be appropriate to the situation. If she was not allowed to work or such for 20 years, she has a long road ahead to self sufficient employment. If they are both established professionals, fuck alimony.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:08 PM
0

Husband's inheritance is fairly easy to protect. her real hope is just the assets gained during the marriage.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:06 PM
1

Alimony, I agree in this case it's bullshit. Unless she is locked out of any income during the proceedings. Then a term fund to support her properties and self in the lifestyle she is adjusting to is apropriate- taken from her half of the settlement. But the rest - it's costing her tons. $7M of a $11B net worth? That's a lot of money that she, rightly or not, is entitled to without the contract forced on her.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:46 PM
-1

She will get half of the marriage net worth. So however much his wealth grew during the marriage will be split in half.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:40 PM
-3

A contract entered under duress is invalid. That is all this ruling is saying. The father in law threatened her children if she did not sign it.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:39 PM
1

AND having the children disowned in the process.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:37 PM
-3

You seem to be having a hard time grasping that they had already been married 16 years when this contract was presented to her.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:36 PM
2

You have been paying faithfully on your mortgage for 16 years when a new contract arrives that says they foreclose now if you do not sign it. the new contract extends your mortgage payments of the same amount another 20 years. There is no legal recourse, choose one. How fair is this, again?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:35 PM
-1

This was not a prenup. it was forced on her under duress (threat to disown the child) if she did not sign 16 years after they were married.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:34 PM
2

The irony of presenting false accusations about the frequency of false accusations.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 01:28 AM
3

Neither did I. what the fuck is a federline?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:16 PM
0

One thing to bear in mind: A sane well adjusted woman would not be on the "wrong" side of a divorce. Her crazy cheating husband would be. Thus, the threat of her making crap up to sway the divorce would not apply. The advice applies to either side of a divorce. But in this sub, the other side would be the female participant. Context is everything.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:40 AM
1

I do this regardless. Anytime I recieve an offer from another company, I take that offer to my current boss and give them the opportunity to match it (and it's associated position, if a change) or not. I have had them match it once. Usually it has been walk. No worries, here's notice, and thank you for your time.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:41 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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