TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ExponentiaIIMeconium Archive

View 0 posts and 46 comments by ExponentiaIIMeconium 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

lol, sorry you feel attacked dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 04:36 AM
2

Is this sub not blasted with that one study that showed most women found the vast majority of men as unattractive? Yes. And it's correct, but that study doesn't show the whole picture. It's true that most women only find 20% of men attractive, but it's a different 20% for every woman. Yes, I know they're all individuals but they're all largely the same There are areas where women vary enormously, much more than men. Sexual attraction is one of those areas.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 04:34 AM
1

:)
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:48 AM
3

Describe how an average man can be seen as above average by a woman? Women disagree on which men are attractive. There's consensus among men on what makes the opposite sex attractive, but not among women. women are the same and they will therefore have mostly the same though process and opinion on these types of things. I can tell already that you learned 100% of what you know about women from the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:47 AM
1

Right, but the hypothetical man in question isn't one who REJECTS marriage, he's one who fails to UNDERSTAND the appeal of marriage: You ARE a loser if you don't understand how having two people work on a problem is more effective that having one person Yeah, if you need to have this concept explained to you, then you're a socially incompetent loser.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:44 AM
9

Because women who refuse to settle for me are ENTITLED WHORES.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:39 AM
5

It's not even true. Every woman disagrees on who the top 20% is. The concept of the "top 20% man" is bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:36 AM
1

According to female hamster logic, any man who isn't a top 20% man is "ugly." We literally have studies that prove this assertion No we don't. There is no top 20% of men. It's a different 20% for every woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:34 AM
2

Bullshit. No woman wants to be with a man SHE views as average. Women will absolutely fall in love with men deemed average by other women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:32 AM
1

Failing to comprehend how marriage could possibly benefit a man suggests both though.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:30 AM
1

Nah you got a notification because I linked to your profile.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:29 AM
1

It proves that the "top 20% of men who all the ladies want" is bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 03:28 AM
1

No they don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 01:06 AM
0

Reddit is how asocial people socialize.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 01:01 AM
1

Poor critical thinking skills and low social intelligence? Nah, that sounds about right to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:56 AM
2

Okay, so don't get married? None of us give a shit whether or not you get married, dude. We're not trying to talk you into marriage. You asked /u/DesperateTraffic3164 why a man should get married and what's in it for him, and he told you. Don't throw a bitch fest because those benefits aren't available to you, none of us care.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:53 AM
1

How dare you expect men to be honest about their intentions, you must be some kind of hypocrite.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:47 AM
–

You're misunderstanding the study. They found that women preferred lean mean but varied in which faces they found attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:19 AM
1

Who said anything about benefiting men? I don't give a shit about benefiting men. I just care about the science.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:19 AM
1

No? There isn't. What are you not getting about this? Women disagree with each other on what's attractive. It's more like a top 40%, and every man in that 40% only appeals to a relatively small number of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/21 12:16 AM
1

I'm not trying to help men. I'm trying to dispel a myth. There's no such thing as the top 20% of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/21 01:26 AM
1

MGTOW walk away at any price. NO juice is worth ANY squeeze. This is bullshit. We both know it. Why are you persisting with this lie? The MGTOW line is that feminism ruined women. If feminism was renounced, MGTOWs would return to the table. Why are you lying?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 10:30 PM
1

No, there's a study showing every woman is attracted to a different 20% of the male population. Tallied up, that's way more than 20% of the male population that's fuckable to someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 10:29 PM
1

No. Much more than 20%. Read the study.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 01:23 PM
1

Sure. There are men out there who are probably unfuckable. I agree. I'm not saying there aren't. I'm mostly just saying that the much mythologized hyper-fuckable 20% of men doesn't exist. It's a myth.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 10:24 AM
1

I didn't say it was completely subjective for every woman. I said female tastes are more subjective than male tastes.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 09:52 AM
1

I'm not saying it's common. But it definitely happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 04:41 AM
1

MGTOW do leave because of HER expectations. She opts out because of HER expectations, in both cases. This is all about HER expectations. No, that's not correct. We both know the MGTOW philosophy, we both know you're lying about this. The entire MGTOW gripe is that feminism ruined women; firstly by normalizing low value behavior; and secondly by encouraging low value women to have high expectations of men. Women in the 50s were slender, quiet, feminine, docile, virginal, clean, and submissive. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 04:39 AM
1

Feminism =/= MGTOW. I didn't say feminism was equivalent to MGTOW. I said women opting out of the dating market was equivalent to MGTOW. That happened in response to feminism, but it isn't the same thing as feminism. MGTOW = men disengaging from society and not asking for goddamned thing. That's what the women in question are doing. They're opting out of the dating market. They don't need or want anything from men. Most of them prefer to rely on their female friends for whatever support they nee…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 04:25 AM
1

I'm sure you think you made some kind of a point in there.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 12:05 AM
1

Mandated female babies is never going to be policy anywhere. It isn't going to happen. It was a dumb thing to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 07:08 PM
1

Nobody in China is legally forced to "take care" of their unwanted children. They might feel social or financial pressures to do that, but there are no legal pressures. That's not how the one-child policy works.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 11:24 AM
1

lol, the irony...
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 10:58 AM
1

Like I said, I'm not interested in explaining this again. Have a nice evening.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 10:33 AM
1

No, the evidence (measured distance) that is demonstrated repeatedly turns into proof No it doesn't. This literally never happens in science. What you are describing is the layman's understanding of science, not actual science. In layman's science, we acquire evidence until we have enough evidence to prove a theory. In actual science, a "theory" is the highest form of knowledge we ever acquire. "So again why does your article that provides no data be believable." It's science journalism. Science…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 10:18 AM
1

Science is philosophy. It used to be called the "natural philosophy". So if I measure the distance to something that is a fact to me and if I can show it to everyone else than it is a fact that it is proven (this is what science is to demonstrate the reality we exist in) No. That is not "proof". That is "evidence". You are being very sloppy with your terms, and this is one context where those terms actually matter. It doesn't matter if we are actually living in a simulation for example the reali…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 10:03 AM
1

I have shown you how science proves things and there are lots more out there You haven't. Nothing in science is ever proven or disproven. The structure of the atom hasn't been proven. The things we "know" about it, we know within a degree of uncertainty. That's how we know everything, within degrees of uncertainty. Nothing in science is ever truly known. For all we know, this entire universe might simply be the projection of a brain in a jar. Atoms might not even exist. Nothing can ever be prove…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 09:45 AM
1

Things are proven in science all the time, No. They're not. You're simply wrong. Read those articles I posted and get back to me. Don't reply until you've read them all.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 09:30 AM
1

It is all or nothing. No it isn't. It just isn't. There's no such thing as scientific proof. I don't know what to tell you. You are fundamentally misinformed about how science works. I can give you some further reading to help you solve this problem if you like, but I don't really have the patience to try to talk you out of it myself. Your commitment to ignorance is kind of starting to depress me. And you seem kind of defensive about your ignorance, which doesn't help matters. Anyway, here's som…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 09:15 AM
1

I don't believe anything 100%. That's for religious zealots and the scientifically challenged. Like I've said, that's why I'm criticizing your approach. Because it's all or nothing. That isn't how science works.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 09:00 AM
1

Any journalist who writes an article about a topic that has a data set and doesn't use it is a shit journalist full stop. They did use the data set. That's what the article was about. Didn't you read it? Truth and understanding are the pillers of science I have explained it already but I'll copy it again so you can read it. Science can never divine truth. Perhaps you've heard the expression "nothing in science can ever be proven"? Truth is a mountain you slowly amass, not a binary you either hit…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 08:45 AM
1

Science journalism when done correctly has the source for the data and uses things like graphs and table to present that data Science journalism may or may not use graphs and tables to express information. Sometimes, the journalist will simply convey information using words, as is their skillset. Both approaches are perfectly valid forms of science journalism. If there is no data set presented in an article it cannot be taken as truth Nothing in science can ever be taken as "truth". You seem to …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 08:30 AM
1

Holy shit man, if its not factual its opinion. No such hard distinction exists in journalism, sorry. All journalism contains some degree of subjectivity. Including science journalism - which is what this article is, by the way. Not opinion journalism. but this article doesn't provide the data for its reader to check so is worthless Incorrect. Science journalism has enormous worth. You're further demonstrating your scientific illiteracy with every new comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 08:15 AM
1

So until actual data is shown to back up the article it is for all intense and purpose an opinion piece as we cannot tell if what the person has written is true or not. No, it's not. That's still not what "opinion piece" means. I don't understand why you don't just look up your terms. No we don't, it's highly unlikely but not impossible. And since it's highly unlikely, we can probably safely assume it isn't there. How are you not understanding that any article that makes claims but doesn't show …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 07:21 AM
1

An article with no data but gives "facts" is opinion until proven otherwise. "Unproven" isn't the same as an opinion piece. You seem to be very unclear on some basic journalistic terms, I'm not sure why you don't just Google them. We have no reason to belive it didn't, We also have no reason to believe that between the Earth and Mars there isn't a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit. Usually lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe in something.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 06:51 AM
1

A one-child policy isn't that far off from legally enforced infanticide, are you out of your fucking mind??
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 06:32 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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