TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DuusieDos Archive

View 6 posts and 82 comments by DuusieDos 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)
3

beat me to it, have an upvote :P
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:37 PM
11

Not a lawyer, however you should go to the courthouse immediately to ensure a hearing hasn't taken place, or have your lawyer do it. There's federal statutes in place to ensure procedural justice in civic cases. Here's one https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_60 I also find it unlikely that she has had previous hearings without your knowledge.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:21 PM
3

8 things I honestly don't care offends people. Okay so not exactly eight. Clapping, smiling and using words such as "old" or "girl" are things that I don't give a flying f*ck about. They're words and behaviors used to convey a message or provoke an emotion. If you're offended by my behavior I'm offended at your sensitivity and we can call it a stalemate. However if I use words that upset you, feel free to assume that 9 out of 10 times that was probably why I used that word in the first place.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 03:10 PM
1

It probably does, but it will take some research to figure out how well the two compares. Our tax system is as far as I know, very different than it is in the US.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 02:42 PM
2

Then you don't have to pay to your ex. You're sharing the time with the child so it's assumed that you're also sharing the costs.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 02:04 PM
2

Danish is kinda hard to learn. However beers are relatively cheap. It's about 0,24 pounds a piece for the cheapest one you can find in a store. The bar i usually go to has bottle beer for about 2 pounds a piece and the biggest tap beer is a liter for about 4,40 pounds. If you have no education the average hourly pay is around 14-15 pounds. Danish people drink all the time so you don't have to worry about that. Usually we go out thursday, friday or saturday. Sometimes all three. Thursday is usual…
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:45 PM
2

Exactly. Child support should never be about women cashing a paycheck.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:33 PM
1

It's established from the perspective that the money paid should be half the living costs and expenses of the child. That's it.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:31 PM
2

That's almost correct. Usually the way the payment system works is that money is subtracted from one account then paid to the state. The state then pays an equal amount into the other account. This also makes it easier to calculate in relation to tax (which it's exempt from). This means that the money keeps going into the right account regardless of whether or not you have paid. If you get behind you therefore usually owe to state and not your ex the money. Money owed to the Danish state can be …
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:29 PM
4

On the issue of conscription. in Denmark there's only a chance that you'll get enrolled since there's only room for about a third of the young men in basic training. Furthermore you can refuse. Which means you'll be spending the four months working some menial job at about 1576 dollars a month after taxes which for an 18 year-old is pretty good. Furthermore it's considered a non-issue since you can say pretty much anything to get out of it. I entered the military at age 19 for basic training tur…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 06:10 PM
7

Okay, that's half of a good start. Now you're not entitled to a lawyer for a retroactive child support hearing so you'll have to pay one out of your own pocket if it's needed, however I strongly advice that you consult one at least initially even if you can't afford him for the hearing. Also consider asking your ex to sign a document stipulating your original agreement. She probably won't do it, but it's always worth a shot. Also consider to option of telling her that you'll file a partition for…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 03:20 AM
5

Yes. You can be sued for retroactive child payments. However she has to specifically file for it and it's not always ordered by the courts. First off: Do you have previous agreements in writing? Secondly: Do you have proof of the expenses already paid?
/r/MensRights16/03/15 03:05 AM
1

This is a very difficult issue, but let me first say that any country which makes prostitution illegal while making the production of pornography legal is committing intellectual suicide. The thing to understand is that as long as there is a demand for something; a market will be created. Sex is not an exception to this rule and since sex is always in general demand there will always be prostitution. Sex IS a commodity; feminists and puritans might do their best to dispute this, however they'll …
/r/MensRights16/03/15 02:40 AM
1

I'm not saying it's what you want. I'm saying that's what you sound like. Dude then you have to settle, at least for now. Find someone who matches you instead of holding out hoping to win the lottery. It's like saying "I've got this lottery coupon with a 100$ but I'm not going to cash it in case i win a million next week" Seriously?! You can cash your coupon and still play the lottery. If you when you're being honest with yourself feel like you can do better, then you can figuratively play the l…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 02:13 AM
1

That's a cop out. An excuse to make yourself feel better. If the only people doing good with women are rich or attractive then it's not my fault I'm doing badly. It IS your fault if you're doing badly with women. It's you who have to develop the skills necessary to hold an interesting conversation, or to approach someone even if it's scary or to understand the differences in the way men and women think so that you can have a relationship dynamic that suits you. Right now you're sounding like thi…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:32 AM
1

Mate; take a deep breath. Let me just explain some problems in your reasoning. First you have to understand that having tits doesn't make you part of some hive-mind. There are a quite a few anti-feminist women. Now as to your first point. I hope it's okay if I'm brutally honest, but you seem to be either really inept with women or maybe unattractive and internet dating is very superficial. There are plenty of guys out there doing great with women. It's true that currently the sexual dynamic favo…
/r/MensRights15/03/15 10:09 PM
1

Saying it's hurting the women's movement is too simplistic. It hurts the core tenet that these movements are comprised of; feminism, any women's movement that subscribe to it's dogma is therefore also hurt. It also proves that feminism will never compile the collected works of Shakespeare no matter how many monkeys they get to write for them.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 04:07 PM
7

Yes and no. Remember this little gem: If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Feminist dogma functions like religious dogma. It's a subjective determination. Rape culture exists in the capacity that the individual can observe what they deem to be evidence. That's why even though it's defined as being a sys…
/r/MensRights15/03/15 12:51 PM
6

MFW She just described herself perfectly.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 09:01 AM
5

There's a difference between getting offended by obvious bullshit demonizing a race or gender and getting offended every time something touches your own gender or race and is displeasing to you. Feminists often shame or silence people who speaks out against women, even if obviously correct; it's an attack on the gender rather than pointing out a problem. White males might very well be the most common type of American terrorist, pending further investigation I would say that if that proves to be …
/r/MensRights12/02/15 02:49 PM
29

It's not legal unless equal hours exists for men. Note that the "men's only hours" if they exist must be equal to the womens only hours, not from a quantifiable perspective, but in quality. Meaning that if the womens only hours are in the gym prime time, the mens only cannot be in the middle of the night or early morning, but must be placed in prime gym time as well.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 07:24 AM
2

Rough Translation: Still more objects experience womanization in daily life. But now cranes , ships and German nouns have had enough. " Always I must be ' a she ' , but what 's really wrong with ' the ' or ' it ' ? " The words come from the nine-year container ship Emma Maersk, who is tired of what it describes as an imposed humannormativ gender identity, which means the 50,000 -ton container ship has got both a girl's name and are referred to as " she " of both the crew and others. Object, not …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 06:08 PM
5

Actually I absolutely love "manspreading" I think it's wonderful that a thing so many average men and women thinks is a complete non-issue is getting this much attention. It's easy to forget that the vast majority of people aren't feminists. They're given so many column inches and so much airtime because news today needs to be ultra PC and because it attracts viewers, a few who finds the "issues" righteous and many for whom they're extreme and ridicules. The great thing about this is, that what …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:42 AM
1

The way I see it many 30 year-olds still don't have the emotional maturity to understand it. It's kinda like explaining bullying. Kids might not get the whole extent of the issues, but after 10 years of anti bullying education, the problem has gotten way better.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:52 PM
1

Actually we might not agree on that either. I personally believe that the best way is through education. SexEd as it exists here is in my opinion very thorough on the physical consequences of sex, but woefully inadequate when it comes to explaining the emotion and psychological implications. I guess that's something I would like us to work on.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:33 AM
1

From an egalitarian perspective I would say that hormonal birth control is not needed for medical purposes except perhaps in the case of menstrual cramps which I will concede. I have dated someone whose pain was so bad I would consider it debilitating. However making condoms free would be great for a number of reasons. However from an economic perspective I would say that all forms of birth control should be free and encouraged. Theoretically, the cost of free birth control would be less than th…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 04:54 AM
1

Yeah, the bias in sexual laws towards men pisses me off too. What you describe is exactly the reason why laws are they way they are. Very rarely is anyone sure how to handle them when you really dive into the complexity and consequences of them, and there will probably never be a time when we can all agree on one method; so we figure it out together and along the way. Sometimes as a collective, sometimes represented by public officials and sometimes by judges that society has elected and tasked …
/r/MensRights28/01/15 04:34 AM
1

Well into research mode then. These are the only "real" medical conditions I could find which are affected by hormonal birth control Lower cancer risk Endometriosis: relief* (there is no cure) Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: relief* (there is no cure) These are the only real medical conditions I could find, none of which hormonal birth control is a cure. It's scientifically speaking no more effective as a treatment for Endometriosis or Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome than pain killers which are cheaper…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 04:16 AM
1

Maybe I didn't formulate myself clearly enough. I meant that they would get coverage for other medication instead of hormonal birth control which could treat the conditions in question or?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 03:48 AM
1

Defending your beliefs in civil discussion is a noble thing. The way I see it, as an example; if we decide to set a rule that says that you can have sex at age 18 not before. Then automatically hand out a guilty verdict to anyone who breaks that rule, which if I'm not mistaken is what you're suggesting and please correct me if I'm wrong. Then would we not punish a great deal of people unnecessarily? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen that young people regret having sex or get pressured into i…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 03:26 AM
-1

actually this practice of interpreting the law is universal. It's done no matter what country you live in. When you cite precedence what you're actually doing is referring to the moral decision someone else made on the basis of that particular law. As these very particular circumstances change so does the precedence; as the precedence changes so does the law. What remains constant is the ethos, the reason for why the law exists. Let me give you an example. The first time someone was brought befo…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 02:57 AM
1

To be honest, to me this sounds kinda entitled. I don't understand how it's a health concern for any woman, since if you do have a condition I presume you could get a prescription under your current healthcare plan. Admittedly; that prescription might not be hormonal birth control however it's not your job to ascertain what treatment you need. It's a doctors. Another thing is the fact that if you still think the state should pay for your sex life, then the only contraception the state should end…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 02:00 AM
1

So, would that mean that a doctor would prescribe hormonal birth control for an unrelated condition and then they'd get that under their healthcare plan or are they arguing that it should just be universally accessible because some women have these conditions? Sorry for the ignorant questions, just trying to understand what's going on.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:39 AM
1

Cool, follow-up question. Why are people demanding your society pays for their sex lives? I mean condoms are obviously somewhat costly and if anyone is willing to pay for mine I would must certainly be grateful, but I live in a country with free universal healthcare and I don't expect anything so preposterous.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:20 AM
2

I mentioned that we don't consider it rape because the notion of something being "statutory rape" is in itself silly to me. Statutory rape means by definition; an action that is rape because the law says so, not because it warrants it. Rape however, by definition is to have sex with someone against their will, or force them to have sex with you. The two things have no correlation. Moving on. It's not that we are lenient with people who have sex with minors. We just don't match a scenario with pa…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:14 AM
4

I'm sorry this might just be because English isn't my first language however I thought oral was already a form of contraception, no? What in the nine circles is an oral contraceptive? Mouth rubbers?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:55 AM
1

Yeah so... Here's the thing. I don't think that this necessarily is rape. Try to follow my perspective for a moment, you don't have to agree at all, but just read this. I'm from Denmark. Here the consent age is 15. We as a nation recognize that people of this general age are old enough to be sexually autonomous, and a 14 year-old is very close to this age. This is the first thing to take into consideration. The second thing is, that in Denmark we don't classify two people having sex while one is…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:46 AM
-2

You do get that Briffault's Law is observation and only generally applicable, right? That's the idea of these laws. Briffault's law deals with things who are solely motivated by biology i.e. the animal family. Here are some other examples of "laws" Betteridges law: Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no" Cunningham's Law: the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, it's to post a wrong answer. Goodhart's Law: When a measure b…
/r/MensRights27/01/15 04:57 AM
1

Heh, it's authored by Dr. Strange :P
/r/MensRights24/01/15 04:31 PM
2

kkthxbye.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:36 AM
6

Here's another hypothesis. You're not adding anything useful to the conversation. In fact, if one goes through your comments one might notice that what you're actually doing in most of them is try to refute other peoples arguments, often poorly by just dismissing something as "emotional" and if one was to actually read your comments the thing you're repeating again and again when you're actually trying to make a point is that 'Being anti MIC is imposing a decision upon you" and implying that, th…
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:32 AM
3

The presence of the word "but" doesn't invalidate whatever comes before it and if you think "that's good for you" is condescending it suggest you eject yourself from this conversation immediately if not sooner, because you're projecting. When I use the words "That's good for you, but" the implied meaning is that "What works for you doesn't necessary work for others". It doesn't mean I'm not genuinely happy that the dudes dick is still working.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 07:49 AM
3

Seriously, I specified that it was an extreme, I even made it a point to specifically mention the more ordinary. How do you get me equating everyone practicing MIC? Furthermore. No, fuck 'that I have freedom of religion shit'. That's a personal freedom that you have, your child have yet to make a religious choice.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 07:42 AM
6

I've already explained in detail how that argument is fallacious and why it isn't the same thing, furthermore I'm not berating anyone this is back and forth. If you read other comments I've already said to another dude who expressed he was happy that he was a MIC: "That's good for you, but its not the same for everyone and then asked him what the actual consequences would be if he had to be MAC instead. The only reason this guy is catching heat is because his arguments fall short.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 01:08 AM
3

Sigh, I've already defined them over and over again.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 01:03 AM
6

Haha, nope. He adopted the practice from middle-eastern practices, he didn't invent it.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 01:03 AM
6

Nope, and you've done nothing to refute me. Your attempt at derailing is kinda pathetic. You're the one bringing up harm as if it's relevant to this particular point, but it isn't since we are talking about pain. You state there are many reasons for it, however you state none of them and yes I've won this argument because you seem to be unable to bring even a single argument for why you're right, you're just fallaciously trying to undermine other peoples arguments.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:05 PM
5

Sigh. It's not even scientifically contested. Memories cannot cause physical pain. I also think you'll find that I have used the term circumcision throughout my posts, I don't use the term mutilation. I haven't based anything thus far on emotion I've based it on the existing societal ethos.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:01 PM
12

And that's okay, but are you happy that some get circumcised without their consent and end up with an unusable penis? or an STD because removing the foreskin with the rabbi's mouth can transmit herpes? (yes this happens) or in the less extreme case that someone is unhappy having a circumcised penis? Just because it works for you doesn't mean that it should be imposed on the ones it doesn't work for. Be honest, what would be the worst case scenario if you'd have had to have it done as an adult?
/r/MensRights18/01/15 07:33 PM
6

Basically, I'm sticking with this being about cowardice. Since you're apparently unable to refute that the preference of having a circumcision at infancy is about the discomfort and pain. You're implying that you would rather impose the same pain on infants who are unable to consent just for the absence of a memory, than dealing with it when you're grown. Explain how that isn't cowardice.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 06:37 PM
4

As this debate is based on ethos, yes. There is an element of merit that must be considered. What? Emotional? Cowardly is directly applicable to someone who forces others to undergo pain because they themselves are too afraid to face it. 3.Not fallacious. We're not dealing in absolutes, that not all are forced to be circumcised doesn't change the fact that some are. Fallacious, in society we take measures to protect people. You can't drive your car while intoxicated because you might hurt someon…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 06:31 PM
7

Hey guys, I'm just going to state why precisely I chose to post this video. It's to encourage you guys to share it on social media and other places. Note that not everything said in the video is necessarily accurate, however I personally think the "Adam ruins everything" series is quite entertaining and in many ways eye opening to how some things, we do for no good reason at all.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:50 PM
5

The foreskin contains somewhere between 20-70.000 erogenous nerve endings mainly on the inner band, that is at least the current scientific view, I believe it was done by counting the amount on a square centimeter and then the number was multiplied to estimate how many are on an average size foreskin, that's why it's varies greatly, but no one has (to my knowledge) ever counted. Furthermore, remember that this estimate is only erogenous nerve endings, and considering that any given spot of skin …
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:46 PM
2

I disagree with you. Not just because dismissing that arguments have merit based on their assumptions is in itself fallacious, but also because by your own admissions, you are making him right. As you said yourself. You are part of a much larger group, I don't agree with you that anyone is categorically trying to dismiss or erase your existence, but your group consists of people who are so cowardly in their own bodily autonomy, that they/you would rather impose circumcision upon people that woul…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:20 PM
21

Arguably no two cocks are alike, so diversity would be insured whether or not anyone is circumcised.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:01 PM
2

The "female safespace" is as I perceive it, as just feminists creating a closed system comprised of their so called "work". As such, I believe the second law of thermodynamics i applicable "In a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems."
/r/MensRights14/01/15 05:14 PM
1

Not really. The social prestige is not really boosted by the fact that you might get the currently most attractive women versus you can repeatedly change your late model for a newer even higher status one. Monogamy was easily enforced before the introduction of marriage and housekeeping was not a wife's job rather it was any and all women's job, and usually never done by men as throughout history it has been "outsourced" and at a cheaper price than marriage.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:06 PM
5

Actually it was created in order to protect women.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:13 PM
1

Let's try this again. Facebook is not university grounds. Period. It doesn't matter that there's a "link" to the school. It's also not targeted at anyone specific as in: "I'm writing this to you" or "I am saying this to you" it was people that were brought up within a preexisting conversation. The conversation was not directed at someone specific though specific people were the subject of the conversation. It is not the schools obligation in any way, to police what their students do while not in…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:31 PM
2

Then it's still (in my opinion) not really an applause of Dalhausie U. that is called for. Considering that these are not threats, not comments made on university grounds and not specifically targeted at someone, these kinds of comments should be subject to absolutely no punishment. Calling someone by name does not mean that you're engaging them in discussion and you have no right to moderate or censor what other people say's, thinks or writes about you unless it actually crosses into illegality…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:58 PM
2

Not really. We're not really able to form an opinion on whether the response was appropriate or not since the goddamn paper doesn't show what was written in the first place. I mean if you can link to twits from those kind of twats, why can't you quote the Facebook posts that are freaking relevant in the actual case!
/r/MensRights18/12/14 02:38 PM
1

The links are identical.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 01:07 AM
1

Where I'm from it's perfectly legal for 23 year-olds to have sex with 15 year-olds. The age of consent here is 15. What's the context? Which country is it from and what is the message they're sending?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 07:04 AM
2

The idea is that males who consider themselves feminists are often within the movement not allowed to label themselves as such, allies is as far as I know "the preferred term". The signal they send within their own narrative is that; if you are male, you will never fully be one of us. You can support us and work with us as allies, but you will never be a feminist - because of penis: you are part of the problem.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 05:37 AM
2

It wont destroy anything, do you honestly think that just because you start calling yourself a feminist, feminists will stop calling you a sexist, or misogynist - Spoiler Alert - they wont. The only thing this would do is give credit to the twisted notion that feminism is a movement for men too, which gives them even more carte blanc to strip our rights. There is no fun to be had, no fun enters anywhere in this scenario. Feminists doesn't lose by default because they don't play by the rules, or …
/r/MensRights10/12/14 05:06 AM
9

Uhm, no thanks. Firstly; feminism doesn't include men's rights in any way. That's why whenever you ask a feminist what feminism has ever done for men they have to mentally masturbate some fictitious story about how they solved the legal definition of rape. (from men can only rape women to; only men can rape, period.) Secondly, this is the fucking problem with feminism in the first place! They have to be so inclusive that anyone, no matter how obviously bereft of common sense, can join and procla…
/r/MensRights10/12/14 03:22 AM
1

My auto-response to when this happens is: "Oh, don't you find it at all ironic that you're assuming absolute dictatorship over an ideology that according to yourself fights against oppression?" The usual response to this is "but many (or the majority) believe like I do" to which I respond "No, they don't. If they did; then how come the percentage of people who are willing to call themselves feminists have been declining over the past 20 years to a point where a larger part of the population thin…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:35 AM
1

As far as I know the story isn't retracted, but Rolling Stone Magazine has issued an apology. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205
/r/MensRights06/12/14 06:53 PM
7

Here's the thing. By participating in this discussion you're doing more harm than good, and everyone needs to understand this. Every man whose life has been ruined, just as every man who will have his life ruined by a false rape allegation suffers not just because he might be found guilty of a crime he didn't commit, but because the stigma will probably follow him for the rest of his life. You need to understand that by taking a stance on any issue of criminal conduct before the fact, you are en…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:08 AM
2

What you're refering to is hypergamy, and it's actually a well accepted state in scientific communities. Studies show women tend to marry up, and that women who do marry up are usually happier and their marriages lasts longer.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 01:46 PM
1

I enjoy watching American news for the most part. For me, aswell as a lot of other Scandinavians it's entertainment. Do you know what the best thing about Danish news is though? They're boring as F***. As they should be. No commercials allowed during state sponsored news programming.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 01:43 PM
8

Yes. Unfortunately we're a bit of a passive people when it comes to religions impact on society as we're a secular country, and many believe religion is something deeply personal. Considering that circumcision is viewed by "Sundhedstyrelsen" (A government entity dealing with all national matters of health) as a minor operation a ban might be out of our reach. We are many though, who hope that soon it will be deemed a body modification much like tattooing, which would mean that there will be a le…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 08:10 PM
48

Hey guys, I'm a Dane and I'm just going to tell you that this isn't true. The issue of male circumcision is being debated, but this does not mean that there is a law or a vote on the books regarding a potential ban.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 03:03 PM
1

chavelah is right. Your arguments are divorced from reality.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 03:07 PM
4

Come on, are we really this petty? Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a societal pressure for men to pay the bills on dates and such, but aren't we drifting dangerously close to an area where we're forcing equality instead of enabling it? Ask yourself this; are we forced to pay, or are we paying because we don't want any potentially negative backlash in our dates perception of us if we don't. Now ask; are women wearing makeup because they're forced to, or because they don't want any potential…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 12:42 PM
2

I still consider myself a feminist in the traditional sense, but I will not identify as one. However I don't consider anyone I've heard of, seen, read or met lately a feminist. Well maybe except Christina Hoff Sommers.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:48 AM
0

Objectively. I find people who rave and rant about these situations annoying. Yes it's funny. It can be funny when it's a portrayal of a man, and the same holds true when it's a portrayal of a woman. If people find it funny when it's a man being portrayed; Great! half the battle is won. Let's try to focus on the other half now.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 09:20 PM
2

Did they really mash together basically every gender distinct case involving some form of violence and then conclude that only the ones definitively proven to be false could be false? Or am I the only one reading it like this?
/r/MensRights18/11/14 08:47 PM
1

I sincerely hope you are right.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 12:03 PM
1

I completely agree that the shirtstorm debate was ridicules, but that contributes to why I think it's important to show support of Dr. Taylor and his team.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 11:53 AM
2

The shirtstorm story is going to stay on Matt Taylors page yes, it's mentioned briefly and conservatively according to WP:BLP policy. I've also mentioned in the talk section that it should be kept there and not on the Rosetta Mission's page. However I think it's redundant as it was a very short discussion and got shot down immediately.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 11:22 PM
9

The moderator who initially stepped in and protected the article of Lena Dunham from editing when it was trolled has expressed that the sexual controversy is noteworthy and editors are currently drafting a section about it.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 10:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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