TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Icebender Archive

View 2 posts and 54 comments by Icebender 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

Nice straw man, it’d be shame if anything happened to it.
/r/MensRights21/09/18 01:38 PM
1

*absolve
/r/MensRights20/09/18 03:03 AM
13

Also acid exists. I continue to be horrified by the prevalence of acid attacks perpetrated by members of both genders, and the incidence seems to be on the rise in the West. Used to be something you only heard about happening in the Middle East. Malicious life long disfigurement is cruel and terrifying, no matter your gender.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 11:02 PM
15

Without the pumping heart to pressurize the blood evenly throughout, blood pools in the lowest portions of the body. So technically, all it takes is to rest the body on an incline, or flip it over. There have been documented cases of autonomic ejaculation after death, as well. It is entirely possible for a woman to fuck a dead man and become pregnant. Just in case you weren't scarred enough by the absurdity of nature for today.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 02:38 AM
2

Really, for any male alive, ever. You can just as easily be a virgin and still find yourself accused.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 05:18 AM
1

Nobody said a person wrote that.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 06:44 PM
1

Right, what they think benefits them, not what does benefit them. A distinction not made in your first comment.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 03:18 PM
1

I don't think that fully captures an explanation here, because it clearly does not benefit men to ardently reject the concept of financial abortion and yet many of the most vocal opponents are men. I suppose you could argue their opposition provides benefits in other ways, but on the surface they fully embrace sex as a shitshow russian roulette. In principle I'd say usually people support what benefits them, but sometimes they don't.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 03:03 PM
2

To my knowledge you have zero evidence to back up what anyone's behavior would be in a club like this. Far more likely this "club" would be an empty building with music. It's never been done as far as I know, so saying there would be fewer _______ situations in such an environment is pure conjecture. Women would have zero motivation to use environments like this, they have all the power in the situation they are in now, and the men follow. Until "men's night" is necessary to bring the guys out t…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 12:56 PM
39

A taboo and distasteful comparison, but the chain of logic used to justify a violation of a social boundary is the same. Sometimes truths are distasteful.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 12:37 PM
1

Different people, different skill set. I wouldn't know offhand how to use chrome dev as you described, although I could look it up. I could easily photoshop it, though, without learning anything new.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 02:31 AM
201

Lots of problems with this, but have they not even considered that "screenshots" of social media conversations can be easily faked? Anybody even passingly familiar with photoshop could fabricate an argument, complete with names and profile pics of their target. To allow them to pass them off as genuine while doxxing their target is reprehensible. I guess that, like rape, arguments online are something that "victims" would never lie about. /s
/r/MensRights17/04/16 03:05 PM
1

Well we couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion now, could we! That would be wrong!
/r/MensRights27/03/16 05:16 PM
7

Only if the "B" refers exclusively to bisexual women. Bisexual men aren't oppressed enough.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:13 AM
5

We don't need a pill, we need vasalgel. Fuckin' pharmaceutical companies, blocking an ideal solution so they can find a temporary solution they can keep selling us.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 03:55 PM
11

Or the fact that (nearly) all buildings are covered in yonic orifices know as windows and doors. In fact people are required to pass through such orifices to gain entry into a building! What perversion! We are all (man, woman, and trans alike) simultaneously oppressed by the unavoidable confrontations with female genitalia in our built environment, and unwittingly turned into sexual predators penetrating the victimized building. How can any SJW stand to enter into a building without it's continu…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 06:39 PM
2

Thanks for taking the time to draw out these distinctions, great job!
/r/MensRights26/02/16 01:16 PM
1

Protagonists are the heroes of a story, you mean antagonists.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:39 PM
12

You know, maybe...
/r/MensRights30/12/15 02:58 AM
0

Pretty sure the above claim that this is "cause and effect" was the joke.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 05:16 PM
2

I really don't think this is going anywhere, so I'll leave you with just two things. Virtually everything you've written is dripping with vitriol. I suppose that having reduced myself to responding in kind is a personal failing on my part. I don't think that "man-isms" ARE sexism, I was drawing a simple comparison to illustrate the power of words. The flu is a disease, "man-flu" is a dismissal and joke. Sexism is terrible, "reverse-sexism" is equally dismissable and pejorative. Drawing that comp…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:05 PM
2

I haven't staked out any rules, how can I be breaking one? Seems unlikely. And for someone who doesn't want their work examined with the fine toothed comb one would reserve for a professional essayist, you sure want extremely explicit criticism to rebut. Not sure how "provide more sources, be more concise" is feedback too vague to address.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 09:04 PM
5

Given your replies to other comments critical of your writing, no, I'm not surprised you don't take criticism well.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:23 PM
2

Unfortunately you are mistaken. The first half of my comment is perfectly relevant to the conversation, you are merely being overly defensive and dismissive of legitimate feedback. Produce work, get critiqued, "Professional Essayist" or not. Especially so, when your "personal style" undercuts you argument by making you out to be a blithering idiot. It reads like you're trying too hard, trying to sound smarter than you really are, and that hurts your position. It damages your credibility as an au…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:54 PM
2

What is with "it hierarcheth", "it dominateth", etc? I strongly doubt this is correct, and even if it were it leaves a bad impression with the average reader that will take away from the message. The passage you excerpted had it right the first time, with "it is pervasive, hierarchical", etc. Beyond that, "reverse" sexism (and racism) are NOT things. There is sexism against men, but that isn't "reverse", it just IS. That sexism against men hasn't been a front running issue, or that sexism agains…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 04:45 PM
0

Don't be daft. It's perfectly possible for someone to believe passionately in something and still be wholly wrong about the facts. That is possible for us all. It is a common fallacy of human psychology to seek out confirming evidence and pass over evidence that is too challenging or contrary to process; we are subject to it is well. You're giving them too much credit, in other words. Most people aren't that cunning or evil, they are simply mistaken. I don't see them as being purposefully dising…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:42 PM
-9

I don't think there are many women who, when trying to take a stand for something they strongly believe, would appreciate having the discussion diverted with implications of their whorishness, or attention to their sexual value over their words. And while I see where you're coming from, I disagree: I think the language we use permeates our thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions, as well as the perceptions of others. For men's rights to succeed we need to be uncompromisingly justified.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:53 AM
-20

You're really going to play it off like there isn't an obvious sexual component to the language you're using? Shit, the definition you provided isn't even the primary definition for prostitution, which is "the work of a prostitute: The act of having sex in exchange for money." The language you use has clear sexual connotations, even if you're claiming to be using the word strictly in the sense of the definition you provided. Everyone else will still have their thoughts drawn to the other, more o…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 10:21 PM
-28

UN Women are leveraging the support of a popular celebrity, not prostituting a whore. You don't agree with them or with Watson, but that doesn't make her a whore. It's that kind of sexually charged language of vilification that gives merit to their claims of sexism. Rise above it or find yourself on the wrong side of history.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 09:10 PM
3

Oh, Ok. Missed the length of the possible sentence. Not sure if that is more or less offensive. Marriage as punishment: horribly offensive. Marriage as punishment approximately equal to 15 days in jail: Pretty fucking horribly offensive. "how did your husband propose?" "Oh, well, you know, it was either that or the 15 days in jail the judge ordered, so here we are!"
/r/MensRights09/08/15 01:37 AM
16

A choice between incarceration for years of your life and a shady, unconstitutional marriage is no free choice. You wouldn't say a person forced to choose between a limb chopped off and a billion dollar fine has a truly free choice. Years of your life, gone, wasted in prison is sufficiently severe that there is only one real option in this scenario.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 05:58 PM
112

It seems like such a marriage would not be legally binding. As entering into a contract under duress invalidates said contract, wouldn't the judge coercing/forcing this man into a marriage make that marriage null and void? And similarly, does the girlfriend in this case have no say in the matter? It sounds as though the judge simply decided that forcing her into marriage as a punishment for the man is Ok, even though she has done nothing to deserve any action from the state. If we're conceptuali…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 02:59 PM
11

The ridiculous part is that the word "patronize" is well established as meaning to condescend in an offensive manner, yet they still felt the need to create a new word. Patronize also even implicates men in its roots, so its not like anything new is added with mansplaining. I can only conclude that teaching English has fallen off the to-do list in favor of other curricula at the schools that turn out SJW fanatics.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 05:51 AM
2

This article was very disjointed and poorly written.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 11:33 PM
2

This argument is a quite specious, in that our lived experiences are often non-representative of statistical facts. It's tempting to say they are , but they aren't. That's why science and statistics are necessary, because evidence allowed us to reach true conclusions more often than anecdotes. I'm not saying that people are actually sexually assaulted as often as people are pulled over. I'm saying the argument that "does X happen Y frequently make sense to you?" (implying that it is absurd to sa…
/r/MensRights23/04/15 05:30 PM
1

Just fyi, it is "egregious."
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:36 PM
1

Um, I don't think selling the car is alright, either... Revenge selling your S.O.'s property is still wrong. Just like it would be wrong for a man to destroy or sell a cheating spouses entire wardrobe, it is wrong for a woman to destroy or sell the car. Doesn't matter that no one was physically injured, it is financial and emotional battery. I get it, a cheating spouse has done wrong and inflicted emotional harm as well, but two wrongs don't make a right. Stooping to that level just speaks poorl…
/r/MensRights05/04/15 09:15 PM
2

Don't cry too many man-tears, you man-baby. /s
/r/MensRights15/01/15 04:29 PM
10

How did we create an entire class of highly privileged, mostly affluent young women who feel unsafe on campus, microaggressed at every turn, utterly unable to cope with the garden-variety misdemeanours of boys and men, who have been behaving badly since time began despite our many efforts (most quite successful) to civilize them? Even when disparaging the movement to demonize men, women are still civilized queens and men mere animals howling at the moon.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 09:33 PM
6

"Dear diary... Jackpot!"
/r/MensRights10/01/15 05:34 PM
2

I completely agree. It is so frustrating when people try that whole "herstory" thing. Anyone with a passing interest in language can see that it is a fluke of English that the word "history" happens to contain the word "his", and has nothing to do with a gendered perspective of the past. Pure coincidence, and to cast it in these gendered terms stymies real discussion in such an infuriating way. It combines the worst aspects of people looking for problems where they don't exist, and with a myopic…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:43 PM
5

I would agree that this is a problem, because I believe that government should be representative of the people. That is why it concerns me that nobody is talking about what has been left out of this image: Namely, a comparison of the net worth or wealth of Congress compared to the average American. Not to delve to deeply, but a quick search would indicate that the poorest of the top fifty Congress members still has 160x the net worth of the median American. The richest? Nearly 8,000x the net wor…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 02:36 PM
4

Well said, fully agree.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 03:58 PM
3

Its like expecting to continue to reap benefits from a product after you've returned it.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 10:46 PM
1

To be fair, such assumptions are the bedrock of seemingly everything that passes for public discourse on Reddit or in the world at large. I'm pretty sure that if people had to confront the reality of other people as nuanced individuals and not a mish mash of stereotypes and labels, their heads would explode. The shortcut of labels is just so much easier, its impossible to resist. Hell, I'm not convinced people can cope with the idea of a nuanced self, much less other people. Given by the number …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:58 PM
3

using "designed" pretty loosely there, I'd say
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:22 AM
56

I'm disappointed in you, reddit. Nobody is going to say it? Fine: Three boys rape a fourth on a school bus... FTFY
/r/MensRights13/01/13 10:06 PM
15

This is really not a way forward for equality.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:22 PM
9

This is worth getting out there again, so here you go.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:40 AM
6

That's one way to look at it. I thought that the whole thing was intended as the prologue to one kick ass video game.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:43 PM
3

Original Research Study for those interested in reading Sonja Starr's research rather than the Huffpost breakdown.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:30 PM
1

While I get the complaint that this constitutes a removal of male-only spaces and the retention of female-only spaces, it is much more likely that (if the photo hasn't specifically left out a corresponding male only bathroom to the left of frame) this is a fairly innocuous design solution arising from building occupancy loads, bathroom occupancy to square footage requirements, and the obvious differences in space requirements for male and female bathrooms. It should be noted that for any given b…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:11 PM
35

But attorneys representing the city have filed court papers denying Lee's allegations, alleging that Lee caused the circumstances leading to his false arrest and arguing that the city and police department are not liable in these types of cases. Victim blaming, much?
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:26 PM
2

Saving for later, thanks.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 06:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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