TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

EvanCarroll Archive

View 8 posts and 55 comments by EvanCarroll 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)
0

ACAB.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 12:01 AM
1

That's the worst analogy ever. Firstly, some people simply don't like tacos. Your assumption that everyone likes tacos is bullshit; some simply don't like cops. Secondly, cops are united by a common allegiance to capitalists and (by proxy) law makers. Their express goal is to handle instability with violent suppression. They're not doctors. It stands to reason that working class people should not like cops.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 08:21 PM
-9

Because not liking cops is a reddit thing?
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:17 PM
-22

Your ex- is clearly in need of mental help, but rooting for the pigs is pathetic.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:47 PM
-1

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:38 AM
4

Ok, so what should the charge be for drugging someone involuntarily? Think 14 years is reasonable in the most egregious case (which this obviously is)? I think that's insane. The state charged him with murder under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act protecting the fetus as life. That's crazy. The fetus's status for state protection should not change because the man decides unilaterally to abort when the woman could otherwise do so and it be perfectly legal. He is guilty of fraud and deceit and h…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:20 AM
1

CNN reports Welden, “pleaded guilty to killing their unborn baby.” He was originally indicted under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a murder charge that carries a life sentence. Walden accepted a plea deal with lesser charges that could give him up to 15 years in prison for product tampering and conspiracy to commit fraud. He plead guilty to lesser charges because he faced life imprisonment when the state wanted to protect the fetus.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:16 AM
1

link to offending facebook post
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:56 AM
2

I don't see what's wrong with it. This is not a men's rights issue. It's a vagina, and it's not yours. If you don't want to see it, look away. I found the cover interesting and artistic.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:02 PM
2

May be fake? It's almost certainly fake. This should be yanked.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 06:37 PM
1

Never said that, not all are misogynistic.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:10 PM
1

I don't think you have to intend to be misogynistic to be misogynistic. So we can't communicate on this subject. We don't agree on the terms.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:41 PM
-3

Yea, but the idea of the comic isn't that men can't take feminists issues seriously or add to the discourse. It's that immature fucktards with a penis will always chime in with a misogynistic comment. That's true, there is enough of them for us to empirically say that in any conversation, even moderate in size, someone will threaten to rape the woman for her stance (regardless of if the stance is defensible).
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:59 PM
1

I agree. It's not right to say that all men do this, but the comic isn't really saying that. What it calls "patriarchy," I'd prefer to simply call abject immaturity but the problem is a real one regardless.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:27 PM
1

I actually agree with this comic. Do all men do this? No, but on the internet enough of us do it to where it is a rather fair stereotype, and it's a comic not a steadfast critique of all men. The internet seems to select for asshats that would make these kinds of responses. Even on /r/Mensrights we see these trolls. I routinely downvote them, but they exist.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:54 PM
15

Joining a club is fundamentally different from forging one by excluding a block on the basis of gender.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 10:06 PM
11

I think this video is doctored, here is the GMA interview with this guy he never mentions Manson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEk9e1Wa-_Y It would be nice to have this unedited without the mangina bullshit.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:32 AM
5

That's a bad picture. Don't use a mugshot, use this one
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:11 AM
1

Half a million likes on that Facebook page. Find the conversations here yourself.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:11 PM
0

The wage gap is real but it is far less than often touted. It also has little to do with hours and overtime and much more to do with profession: teachers, vs business-"men". The feminists argue that women are disproportionately employed in these professions because that's the patriarchy. Like you, I think this defense is nonsense. I think they're empowered to choose their profession: they're liberated against choosing normal Capitalist ass-kissing carers, along with all the boring humdrum that g…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 02:06 PM
2

That's horrible and exactly to the point. Everyone you're saying is about inflicting wrong on a child to establish your ideas of what is right. I don't want a child without a father to look back on her childhood and think she missed out on anything. If it happens, that's one thing. But, I'd seek to mitigate that and want no part in perpetuating it. Establishing this feeling of having been excluded to preserve your ideals is pathetic. Shove your crack pipe up your ass.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:52 AM
0

Scumbag event doesn't allow women to dance with their children. Shame on those that upvoted this. This is not a MensRights issue, and we shouldn't be defending it because there are events exclusive to mothers too. There is something seriously screwed up about fathers going to war, not coming back, and having their children miss out on an event that was needlessly prejudicial. Decent people don't want that, and maintaining a status quo that harms children just to keep the tables-even is rather la…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 05:51 AM
7

You moved the blue line to exclude the ones "proven false or recanted", rather than realizing that those "proven false or recanted" should also be in the box delineated by the blue line as they are "reported" too.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:09 AM
12

What a stupid title. If my sperm is worth $92,700 then not walking a quarter of a mile when my car gets towed is worth $300. My sperm is worthless, and a lot of men would gladly give it away to any woman who could provide an enjoyable experience. It's the child that has worth, and it's far more than $92,700. The only question is how much of that burden I should be responsible for.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 08:21 PM
1

The question is an ethical question. How the law exists now has nothing to do with this conversation.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 12:13 AM
1

And, how is a married person any more duty-bound to "provide [...] reproductive ability" by the very merit that they're married, more so than woman is to provide a home cooked lunch? And, would you object to employer requiring a husband's permission to have his wife work, since it could perceivably interfere with some man's concept of marriage? Your absurd foundation is that my marriage contract means I forfeit control over my own reproductive ability. That's nonsense. Accept what I'm willing to…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 11:43 PM
1

That's the point. You lose at analogies. No black person enters into a contract for their skin color. And, no Evan Carroll enters into a marriage contract to give a woman control of his capability to procreate.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 11:34 PM
3

That'd be pathetic and unjust. A woman, even married, should lose no rights to her body and should not be subjugated to a husband-prescribed role of baby-production. I'll join with those women making such complaints in a fight for equality, but it is no excuse for men to suffer the same injustice. If you want a woman that doesn't want tubal ligation, talk to her and don't marry one that would otherwise desire tubal ligation. But, don't assume that my daughter won't want one just on the merit of …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:24 AM
0

You assume the contract I enter into with my wife about my reproductive status is more real than the contract a black person enters into for their color of their skin? GTFO.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 03:59 AM
6

The market doesn't dictate ethics. Ethics constrain the market. I dare a surgeon to refuse to operate on someone because they're black. There are all kinds of protected groups, perhaps the male-gender isn't one -- that's an MR issue though. If a woman couldn't get an Implanon (implanted birth control) unless her husband signed off on it, you could only imagine the type of uproar that would cause. And, rightfully so.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:04 PM
0

Who are you to rank the gravity of an STD as being more detrimental than a child to someone's lifestyle? On principle it's wrong.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:06 PM
1

Fair enough criticism accepted, and sorry for posting something that's already made the rounds. I suppose that's the downside of requesting people use screen shots. =(
/r/MensRights31/12/11 02:22 AM
1

Can't fix all of the world's problems... BTW I'm impressed you followed this thread so far down.. Opinions?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 01:35 AM
1

He did stop. ;)
/r/MensRights30/12/11 10:10 PM
1

So yes, you might have not made upa lie, but what yousaid was so far removed from what a decent person would consider the truth, that it went through a trial. Then you were sp guilty and there was enough discrepancy in the process to allow for an appeal. The jury decides fact. Not the judge. And, truth in the United State is an affirmative defense. You have to claim truth in the lawsuit.. I got in a suite because I was buying a house when I was 19 and wrote about the transaction and the real est…
/r/MensRights29/12/11 04:45 AM
1

You could make the same argument about the emotional damage for failing to show courtesy or politeness. You assume someone has a dignity. You assume their dignity has been damaged. You think only financial compensation can solve the problem. With defamation: You assume someone has a positive reputation. You assume their positive reputation has been damaged. You think only financial compensation can solve the problem. This is flawed. I'm using logic; you're using emotion. You even go further and …
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:50 PM
1

So what, she's in entertainment -- that's supposed to give you knowledge of libel laws? I co-host a podcast show on the Coffee Party with Egberto Willies; it isn't jack-shit but it's more of a news-media credential than anything listed on that wiki page. You're just arguing emotionally like the other kids on Reddit that spew, out of irrational teenage angst, threats to sue over internet commentary. As for the Versace case, while what he said might have been fact, as he couldn't prove it, defamat…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 09:13 PM
1

If I say that people shouldn't eat cows from ACME Farmz because they have Mad Cow Disease, and the next week BetaBar Farmz sees an increase in sales by 20% and ACME sees the like decrease the preponderance of evidence would lead one to believe the statement of fact caused the damage. Your statement about "impossible to calculate the damages, because you would have to be prescient to be able to do so" is again untrue. You don't have to have absolute knowledge to lay claim to actual damages. Likew…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:31 PM
1

None of that happened. What did this guy lose? You're again trying to make this about actual damages. They might be there, but prove it first. Prove with a preponderance of evidence that the result of this "damage" was because of this wrongful attribution. If you can't this would have been punitive if it went to court. In the United States you can't get punitive damages for libel without having actual damages. If someone said something untrue about me -- feel free to try me on it -- I'd confront…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:04 PM
1

The 13k is what she gave him to settle the suit. That means they knew no matter what she would be paying money if it went to court. She and her lawyer were the ones who calculated that amount, but the guy could've taken her for a lot more. She is lucky she didn't come away with a 40k judgement, plus having to pay all of his reasonable legal costs. Clearly wrongful attribution for few hours ought to be a $40,000 fine? This is the type of faulty logic and absurd claim that results in my activism w…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:41 PM
1

By shouldn't have said it, I mean to say it was uncouth. I do not mean to say it should have been legally actionable; yes, I know in Australia it is. You can't possibly calculate $13,000 of damages from a libel claim. This is most probably speculative punitive nonsense. With a dinged car, you have a real cost (actual damages) to getting the repair. With your reputation you plea to a judge or jury and fall within statutory ranges for a reparation of sort. It's rather pathetic. P.S. I don't care a…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 05:25 PM
-1

Listen, I argued it shouldn't have been done. You argued it was permissible under the "law" in Australia. See the connection? It's not there. That's because what happens in Australia has no bearing on what should have been done. That's not a cop out: it's addressing the right action for the situation. You're merely describing the very problem I'm addressing which does nothing for conversation. And, your cup-half-empty-half-full defenses are really lame too. Maybe when you grow up and become an a…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 04:19 PM
-5

Again, ought-is problem. How the press in Australia works is now how it should work: you're merely describing the way things are, not the way they should be. No one should be sued for this minuscule shit. And, after having read the first sentence I'm thoroughly convinced you're just ranting and not reading and I've turned off.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 03:42 PM
-3

Magazines you work for bear nothing in common to her small time seemingly non-commercial blog. And, I have no reason to believe her public musings on a wordpress make her a "professional writer". You make all of these ridiculous irrational assumptions -- she publicly apologized and yanked the article merely hours after writing it. Again -- who gives a shit? So, a few people picked up on it. Write them and ask them to remove it; aver you were accidentally mistargetted. It would take less time to …
/r/MensRights27/12/11 03:03 PM
-3

Everyone who works in Australian media have the fact that you can be sued for defamation very easily. Everyone is counselled to the fact that even if it is true, unless you can prove it, it can be classed as defamation. We also have guidelines where it has to be in the public interest to run a story and not just for shits and giggles. This woman went out and identified a guy clearly enough that there was no mistaking who she meant. If there was only two butchers in a town and I said the butcher …
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:17 AM
-3

This is ridiculous. I've had nothing but bad experiences with irrational feminists over the past six months but never, in any of these interactions have thought, "well maybe I should sue them." The over-litigious culture has got to go.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 12:38 AM
2

I think "dress like sluts" is totally inappropriate. And, the otherwise sound point made in the title is no where to be found in the article. Where are the supporting points? Scorn-worthy vacuous article.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 06:24 AM
4

Just so no one is thrown off by the thread, this is a comment underneath it: if others would like to chime in now on whether men should be allowed, feel free. I have never lead a womens meeting. Those with more experience are more than welcome to assist with info, like the link I received: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Safe_space Safe space geekfeminism.wikia.com Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face Followed by Occupy Houston U…
/r/MensRights08/11/11 03:49 AM
8

Occupy Houston UPDATE: we are asking that women only attend this meeting, though there will be upcoming educational meetings relating to women's issues as well as gender/sexual-identity issues which men will be welcome to attend, for this meeting we will be focusing on an hour of survey discussion about gender issues at the occupation and want to make sure women feel comfortable sharing their perspectives.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 03:48 AM
7

That would be me.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 03:27 AM
9

OH = Occupy Houston
/r/MensRights08/11/11 02:11 AM
1

Texas has a mandatory sentence for a third DUI. Not sure how she got off so light. I know a lot of people that've gotten 2 years, and only got out after 18 months on good behavior.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:07 PM
1

Seriously? I just wanted to call them out on it, on the right forum MensRights and apparently 9 feminists have sought to sabotage my post.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 10:53 PM
5

Have an upvote sir, this is a great example of all things great in /r/MensRights
/r/MensRights15/12/10 02:18 AM
1

Life is like a box of chocolates....
/r/MensRights06/12/10 08:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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