TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JaceXAnders Archive

View 0 posts and 34 comments by JaceXAnders 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

It''s important for any movement to have tangible goals. That's one issue with this sub - there's no calls for activism, only reactions to bullshit Feminists spew. It really detracts from your movement if all you're seen as is reactionary.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 12:03 AM
5

Seems like a poorly written article all-aroumd: What specifically are the students reacting to? They never list examples of heteronomitivity nor sexism Neither the article nor students define "radical feminism" or "social justice" nor list a solid outline of steps they're taking in reaction to an injustice. The article lists one school as an example. The exception doesn't make the rule. As a UC student, the only social justice issue I take is no consent with alchohal. But its also been a while s…
/r/MensRights14/03/18 06:10 PM
1

The Western World in general needs to really start emphasizing STEM. We're falling behind developing nations where young men and women are desperately working to escape poverty. Especially here in the US, we need to completely reorient ourselves in the way we approach and think about education.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 10:09 PM
1

Oh I'm the troll for citing studies as evidence? What have you brought to the table? Personal anecdotes?
/r/MensRights17/02/18 06:05 AM
1

Ah, so feels before reals amirite?
/r/MensRights17/02/18 04:07 AM
1

Personal observation doesn't count as real? Nope. Here in the scientific realm we rely on studies over personal anecdotes. Studies have shown there are no significant downsides to circumcision, and thus we should continue to do so until studies say otherwise.
/r/MensRights17/02/18 03:01 AM
1

So feels before reals, now? I mean, given the rampart support for Trump on this sub, it doesn't surprise me.
/r/MensRights17/02/18 01:42 AM
1

Source for both claims?
/r/MensRights14/02/18 09:24 AM
1

Well this sub is obviously not for discussion anyhow, given the vehement flaming and refusal to acknowledge facts or context, so not much it appears.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 09:07 AM
1

That video is too long for me. I don't have time to watch it all, and skipping through ti he doesn't make many statistical or fact-based arguments - but again, I was skipping through it. How does this video compare as a compressed, scientific summary?
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:20 AM
-3

The facts are that it is pseudo-scientific horse shit dressed up as an excuse to mutilate people. It is legalized sadism no matter what continent it takes place on. Lul. Just lul.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 07:59 AM
-7

I was, whereas you lazily linked a wiki article that you didn't even bother to read. If you are arguing that routine infant circumcision is justified by a few diseases that occur in a small fraction of people that are perfectly treatable, or that circumcising babies in the US somehow affects HIV transmission in Africa, you have bigger problems than your fragile ego. STDs that can and do affect developed nations, you mean? FFS you're criticizing WHO - a board of renowned researchers and scientist…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:49 AM
-12

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing facts on this sub. But apparently we're only considering the alleged downsides for white middle class American men.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:37 AM
0

Whoopdie doo. Way to nitpick
/r/MensRights14/02/18 05:38 AM
3

Yes, and it summarizes the health benefits and risks.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 04:43 AM
3

I said summary. It provides sources - like WHO - that provide anthologies of research on the benefits and side-effects/negative outcomes. It's not a primary source, and no one should treat it as such. But ffs this argument is annoying. Just click on the hyperlinks if you're skeptical - which is what people should do anyway!
/r/MensRights14/02/18 04:21 AM
-12

Wiki has a good sumamry of benefits.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 04:15 AM
0

Nazis are against democracy. They don't believe all people are equal under the state, and thus those they deem less than them don't deserve the same rights. They only believe in rights for themselves. You only believe on your right to hate speech, not in anyone else's. We let you run ypur mouths for years and now we have a Facist as a puppet president who's actively destroying our democracy and economy. So its time you either take ownership, or move to a non-democratic state. Because we've jad e…
/r/MensRights27/10/17 11:02 PM
2

Aye. I concur. Marx explicitly calls for violent revolution as the only means of truly being able to topple the Capitalists. Tot hat end, he was more in line with Fascism than he would ever realize. The problem with punching a communist today, however, is that there's not many of them left. Maybe we'll see a sudden surge int eh coming decade or two, like we're seeing with the Neo Nazi movement, but at the moment socialism is much more popular with the left than communism.
/r/MensRights27/10/17 09:54 PM
-1

Nazis don't give two shits about the constitution. Why should we stand idly by and watch them destroy our democracy, like they did to so many countries 70 years prior? They shouldn't be given the rights of a citizen if they don't believe in those rights for everyone. Period.
/r/MensRights27/10/17 06:07 PM
-4

All of it? Nazis are against democracy. Pick up a textbook a read a little.
/r/MensRights27/10/17 08:14 AM
-14

I didn't realize protecting the Constitution was frowned upon by the same crowd that lobbies against gun control in similar vein
/r/MensRights27/10/17 12:49 AM
2

Do you have any specific examples?
/r/MensRights27/10/17 12:47 AM
6

Most liberals aren't SJWs or men-hating feminists. They happen to agree that both genders should be treated equally. Unfortunately, we seem to be represented by Feminazis and the likes, similar to how the right is represented by Trump and Facists.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 11:20 PM
5

Trump wants to censor the internet. Free speech censoring goes both ways.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 11:17 PM
2

Wanna come up with some real facts? election fraud) n. misrepresentation or alteration of the true results of an election voter fraud) n. misrepresentation of identity when casting a vote You're more likely to be struck by lightning than experience voter fraud. Meanwhile, Trump is still losing, and has been the entire election.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 04:57 AM
1

To clarify what I meant, her lack of support is shown by how few people show up to her rallies. That being said, it is evident that many would rather vote for her over a Fascist, given her lead in every national poll and the majority of states. On the second point, do not confuse election fraud with voter fraud. What happened during the Democratic Primary was election fraud, not voter fraud. And in any case, there will be no need for election fraud in the general, due to her crushing lead. Trump…
/r/MensRights27/10/16 02:06 AM
1

Caught me in my own misinterpretation. I apologize, those are very good points and thank you for the corrections. And I hope, on that last point, that people answer honestly in polls, for the sake of both the accuracy of the polls and - most greatly - for the sake of our democracy.
/r/MensRights25/10/16 06:21 PM
5

Voting =/= supporting. 538 has accurately predicted elections for years, and will do so again. Sorry, go back to r/the_donald.
/r/MensRights25/10/16 03:00 AM
1

Ah yes, Project Veritas, where they interview low-level members of the party with circumstantial evidence at best of what went down during the primary, and issues long before that.
/r/MensRights25/10/16 02:59 AM
1

If you ever bothered to read further into the issue, you'd know that the more variables you have, the harder it is to make an accurate prediction. You had 17 - 22 candidates running at the beginning of the GOP primary, and that prediction was made before the first GOP debate. Which means that participants had little to no exposure to any of the candidates, and still had one to several months to make up their minds as to who they were voting for. Given the conditions, the number of variables and …
/r/MensRights25/10/16 02:57 AM
2

Sanders supporter here. If you paid attention to us at all, you'd know that a good half of us are either putting in a protest vote or voting for Stein (which is also a form of a protest vote). We didn't "immediately" flip to Clinton once the primary was over. I hate Clinton, and I hate Trump, but the fact of the matter is, we're stuck between an arrogant, corrupt, classist, hawkish misanthropist and a full-blown racist misogynist, classist, arrogant, bigoted Fascist. I would rather this country …
/r/MensRights25/10/16 02:49 AM
1

Wow the CDC did a study? Good for them. And yeah I found the 70%. Thanks!
/r/MensRights05/10/16 02:54 AM
1

OP could you please link me to the study(ies) you read? Not being a skeptic, but there are other studies that suggest the opposite.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 11:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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