TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

IdRatherBeTweeting Archive

View 0 posts and 36 comments by IdRatherBeTweeting 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

Read the comment you just replied to. That is what misogyny looks like. That person hates women, all women. This place is fucked up. Get out while you still can.
/r/MGTOW07/11/18 06:46 PM
1

It turns out I could understand the point you were trying to make. It just isn't very insightful or interesting.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/17 01:43 AM
1

That comment is so vague it is impossible to understand.
/r/TheRedPill09/08/17 01:20 AM
1

It is the employee recovering costs from the corporation....
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 11:10 PM
1

There are many different definitions of the word "corporation". It can be as general as "any group of people who act together as a legal entity" which is a very broad definition. From the context of this conversation, we are clearly talking about the business definition of corporation. The IRS spells out very clearly what a corporation is and isn't here: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/corporations Namely "In forming a corporation, prospective shareholders exchange …
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:28 PM
1

The entire point of "at will employment" is that employers do not have to provide a reason for termination. They can if they want to, but it is not required. If they chose the fire this guy and did not provide a reason, the onus would be on him to prove that he was fired because of this email. That becomes difficult because if there are any other problems with his employment.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 05:12 PM
1

If he's at-will employment, he can be fired and Google need not provide a reason. All of this is academic at that point.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 02:52 PM
2

That's a totally different topic and corporations promoting free-speech with in their workplace.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 11:59 AM
4

You claimed that corporations frequently promote "free speech" in marketing materials. When asked to provide a source, you could not. Simple as that.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 11:11 AM
9

That statement is about how the company doesn't discriminate against LGBTQ employees. It says nothing at all about free-speech in the workplace. Try again.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:57 AM
5

Well there is a huge controversy about it currently, so by the very definition of the word it is controversial. I don't think we should get into the debate itself here, since this conversation focuses specifically on whether corporations encourage debate on controversial non-workplace related topics or not.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:48 AM
10

I am challenging you to provide a source for a dubious claim. That is the opposite of trolling. So far you've tried to pawn off a public university in the British broadcasting company as "corporations". since you don't seem to know what a corporation is, just pick any one of the thousands of companies that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ or Dow Jones stock exchanges.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:44 AM
9

The BBC is a publicly-funded organization in the U.K. It is the opposite of a corporation. Try anything from the S&P500. Hell, anything that trades on the stock market even.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:35 AM
8

You are quitting this debate because you claimed corporations frequently publish marketing materials that encourage or support free speech but then you failed to find even a single example of this. You are quitting because you were wrong. The first step towards becoming a reasonable human being is being able to admit when you're wrong. Give it a shot.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:27 AM
9

Where in "company marketing efforts" does it say that you are free to use corporate email to discuss controversial political and societal issues without fear of retribution?
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:19 AM
9

Oh come on. That is from a pubically funded university, not a corporation. Is that really the best you can do?
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:17 AM
44

Corporate culture has always been about the work. You show up, you work, you go home. It is common knowledge that if you bring up religion, politics, or sex you are playing with fire and risk termination. It has never been a place for free speech. There is no "battle for free speech" in the corporate workspace. If you go to work and send out an email about controversial political / societal issues, you can expect to hear from HR and may lose your job. That's the way it has always been. Corporate…
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:10 AM
8

Listen, if your claim is that it is common for companies to publicly say in "marketing booklets" that they foster environments of free speech and expression of minority views, then it should be extremely easy for you to go onto some company websites (because let's be honest nobody publishes "marketing booklets" any longer) and find examples of what you're claiming. This is exactly the type of situation where you need to provide a citation for what you're claiming. Since you seem to think that it…
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 10:01 AM
31

But there is a culture of wanting all voices to be heard and not condemning minority views. No there is not. Corporate culture is absolutely not a place to share controversial political views. It never has been. You are simply wrong about that.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 09:46 AM
82

There has never been a promise of free speech within a company. There is no First Amendment right to protect you from retribution by and employer. It has always been that way.
/r/TheRedPill08/08/17 08:19 AM
1

Again, either link to the proof you say is abundant or stfu and admit you are full of shit v
/r/PussyPassDenied27/04/17 10:14 AM
1

I read 2x all the time and never saw anyone bitch about dick appearance once. You are so full of it. Willful ignorance? No. Either show proof or stfu. You know you are wrong, just admit it. Also, if you had ever seen a pussy, you'd know that's a nice one. You never turned down a pussy because you never had the chance. That's obvious.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/04/17 10:12 PM
1

We have over 1000 up votes on a comment calling this pussy ugly on a post unrelated to porn. Find me ONE comment like this where women are bagging on a dudes ugly dick. You cannot because it simply dose not happen. No one calls women virgins for talking about dick appearance because it simply does not happen. Disagree? Show me the proof.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/04/17 08:53 PM
2

The original comment I replied to said that there was something physically wrong with the pussy. In my reply, I said that was nothing physically wrong with the pussy just that that was too much hair. In your reply to me, he said that her pussy was "gross" without specifying why. A reasonable person would think that you are green with the comment I reply to and disagreeing with me. Otherwise why would you even waste time replying? Next time when you plan on agreeing with me, make your point more …
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/17 10:08 PM
2

In my original comment, I said that this was a normal looking pussy, just too hairy. You replied at the time: That thing looks like a monster, gross. Now you were saying that it's a normal pussy, just too hairy. You were just agreeing with my original comment, but being kind of an asshole about it.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/17 04:33 PM
2

Then you misunderstood the context of this entire conversation.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/17 02:17 PM
3

You are entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to point out that your opinion doesn't represent the majority as you claimed. Most people can identify a normal looking pussy with too much hair. But, you know, you do you I suppose. Maybe you think pussy aesthetics are super important.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 10:43 PM
2

Actually my comment has 902 votes to the 1002 votes calling it gross. Considering he had a few hundred votes when I replied, the voting actually favors my opinion.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 06:57 PM
3

No, it looks like a normal pussy. Don't be weird.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 04:33 PM
5

GRAMMER POLICE It is spelled "grammar police." You really have to get your basic English skills together if you want to job that pays more than minimum wage. I doubt anyone that hasn't mastered elementary school language skills has seen "alot" of pussy.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 03:33 PM
12

No you haven't.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 03:26 PM
7

How can you tell? Also, it is "a lot" not "alot". If you are going to go all caps, get your grammar straight homie.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 03:03 PM
6

I don't give a fuck about this chick. I am just saying that a lot of neckbeards here have no idea what a normal pussy looks like. This is just a basic sex ed 101 PSA, not "whiteknighting" or whatev. Chill out.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 03:01 PM
4

You are in for so much disappointment once you actually see a pussy in real life.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 02:59 PM
30

Nair napalm
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 12:42 PM
853

I get that we don't like her and she is a bad person for using the pussy pass. However let's keep it real. She has a perfectly normal looking pussy that is in dire need of some hedge work. She needs a razor, not surgery. NSFW link: http://cdn28.atkingdom-network.com/secure/content/v/ven020/345228/ven020BMB_345228032.jpg?h=3136d749ca8dc09fb09ba6bc029db753&site=1000 EDIT: I really wonder what some of you keyboard virgins think an actual pussy looks like.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/17 12:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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