TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Jiratoo Archive

View 0 posts and 28 comments by Jiratoo 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

... And I didn't claim that trp or mensrights are feminist forums. As I said, criticising whataboutism is all right when you're attempting to derail a conversation about a certain topic (in this case trp) with a finger pointing at someone else doing bad things (in this case cosmo-style-articles). That still has nothing to do with analogy, it's a simple deflection and a logical fallacy. One group doing bad things does not excuse a different group doing bad things. Both are bad. The end.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 02:41 PM
7

Depending on the setting the feminists would absolutely be in the right to criticise you for whataboutism in your example. If it's a forum for feminists, a feminist talk/meeting/whatever, you mentioning men's rights is just derailing and not relevant to the setting. Same goes the other way, if people come here and counter any talk about problems that affect men with examples of how women have it worse/other problems, that's also whataboutism. And it's not a analogy in those settings, it's basicl…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 09:49 AM
10

I'd disagree, we've talked in school about whataboutism a good 15 years ago and, whatever your experience with it might be, it was a well known propaganda strategy employed by the soviet union during the cold war. And regardless of that, I've not written anything that could be construed as "pc" or "matriarchal", so your complaint here seems rather random.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 06:35 AM
14

.... It started as a soviet propaganda strategy during the cold war.... Not sure in what world this is about PC.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 06:00 AM
14

Whataboutism is deflecting critique by pointing at something else and not directly answering the question/critique, so no, I have not engaged in it. People are criticising trp - you post your articles - that is whataboutism. It's a coined term with meaning, so it's not like I'm making this up. I'm also not crying. In fact I've been posting here (oh and I have been posting to this sub for years, just very very infrequently) in a very neutral tone. To be honest, you seem much more upset than me. Y…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:42 AM
18

Again, how does this make trp less of a shit hole? All your responses seem to go to "there are other bad things". I don't see the hypocrisy, I see a lot of whataboutism. I don't see anyone defending said articles that you posted. I don't see anyone arguing and linking to trp in order to make seem them less bad. And as for Cosmo, and similar magazines, they were (probably still are, but I really don't know) also frequently criticised for printing misogynistic articles by feminist groups (mainly d…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:23 AM
22

Do you honestly believe that these articles are a) the same tone/attitude as the examples linked in the imgur album, b) are all made by the same group and c) somehow making the trp people that said those things less bad? Like, I'll agree, those articles are shit. Still, the trp shit in that album is worse and a lot more hate filled.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:12 AM
1

That's great, I agree. He's also questionable on all of the above mentioned issues, so I don't see him as attractive to most people that value womens rights.
/r/MensRights09/09/16 11:11 PM
1

Yes but why would someone that finds this important, help nominate even just one of them? Also, you don't need to overturn roe v wade to make access harder to abortions. Also, a number of people (and quite a few of them are womens rights advocates) thinks that abortions should be, partially or completely, covered by the government. Nothing here makes Trumps stance attractive to women that value womens rights. Not to mention that you don't have to overturn it to alienate those voters. And lastly,…
/r/MensRights09/09/16 09:40 PM
3

He's been publicly pro life since 2011, hence 5 years. He was pro choice before that, I never claimed anything else. Hence he's been pro life for the last 5 years. Now, is he pandering with the pro life thing? Maybe. Hard to say. Does it matter tho? For people that value things such as these, they'll just look at his last stance and that is pro life but that ship has sailed. Maybe they'll fear he'll nominate a pro life supreme justice. Easy and reasonable conclusion that he actually might.
/r/MensRights09/09/16 07:28 PM
5

You're right, I misremembered the exact question, it was an "if it were illegal". Even in that scenario, punishing the woman is still not going well with, you guessed it, women. It also doesn't change the fact that up to the end of last year he was pro life for the last ~5 years and his current stance is "this ship has sailed" and not "pro choice"
/r/MensRights09/09/16 06:26 PM
6

That's ignoring the interview in which he said that abortion should be illegal and that women having an abortion should then be punished. Admittedly, he later walked back (well, a bit at least after the outcry) on this and corrected his statement to doctors performing abortions should be punished and not the women. In any case, it's easy to see why this sort of stuff can be off putting for women, even if he changed his stance on it (again).
/r/MensRights09/09/16 05:53 PM
10

He's also anti abortion and, mostly, anti planned parenthood which both are pretty central in many of the women's rights discussions. And he made some really fucking stupid comments that probably don't go so well with quite a few women (like defending that strong women don't get sexually harassed thing or the, basicly, "boys will be boys" thing ). (although, I'll be honest here, I'm not even 100% sure what his current stance is on planned parenthood, but last I can remember he was against them).
/r/MensRights09/09/16 05:00 PM
14

There's always at least a few comments in the top with "let's hear the other side" if a guy talks badly about his ex gf/wife on hony. Strangely enough, this does not happen when a chick talks bad about her ex bf/husband.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 06:35 AM
2

Actually.. if you treat your SO like that, adding another person to this is the worst idea of all time and I couldn't think of anything that would even be close to as much of a problem.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 03:53 PM
1

You're probably right. I just kinda doubt that I will only be used for clear cut cases where one is basicly as close to being unconscious as possible.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 10:37 AM
1

I get the basic idea and I agree with the basics here. Yes, you shouldn't drive/do stupid shit while drunk. Many people are clever enough to leave their car at home when they go drinking to not get into the situation where they could drive drunk. This doesn't exactly work with sex. For example: you're at a student party. Way too drunk. Other person hits you up and is equally drunk. Both decide "to do something stupid". I don't know why and/or how one would determine that one party could be at fa…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:17 PM
1

... But that's insane. So the only reasonable course of action for the students is to not hook up when drunk - problem being, most people aren't really thinking all too reasonable when they are literally drunk enough to misinterpret consent.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:51 PM
11

How is the post before you "Jew hating"? Are you not allowed to say anything bad about a groups traditions without also "hating" them? This is about as stupid as it gets.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:48 PM
1

What? You'd obviously also mention how many men and how many women are in the army /in industry jobs. The point here is easy: If 95 % of the personal in the army is male, it is absolutely expected that 95 % of deaths should be men. That there are more men in the army or in industrial jobs is also a problem, absolutely, but the graph is not talking about that. This is talking about deaths and accidents and those should include a weighting or at least the total numbers of men and women in those ar…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 11:49 PM
12

Well, he still has a point. If 10% of the army is female, the statistic should reflect that. Same with industrial accidents. Will most likely still have men at disadvantages, but it's a bit more "honest" that way. For the other points, yup, weighting can be ignored.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 08:57 AM
3

Great point and thanks for the detailed response! English is not my first language, so I was just wondering.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 08:02 AM
4

Isn't english a language that depends on the usage? I frequently get told that word definitions change according to the common usage. I'm not denying that historically these words were used differently but I hardly think that "bitching" or "you're a dick" are currently used in an anti male or female sense.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:17 AM
1

Oh yeah, you're right. I didn't mean to imply that all french are strange or something. I meant that the people that actually passed that law, with that reasoning, are strange.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:34 PM
10

According to wikipedia all paterny tests without court order are banned in France, "to preserve peace in french families". Strange place/people.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 01:41 PM
9

In germany it's illegal to do it without consent of both (husband and wife), but you can get it done though a court order iirc. Never heard of a country where it's completely illegal.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 11:52 AM
5

I'd bet there are also MRA crazies that do think women are less or whatever; but then again, you have crazies everywhere. The broad majority is, as far as I know, very reasonable.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 11:00 AM
17

I've already heard from a good friend that called a suicide hotline a few years back and she actually got told "just do it already" I really doubt it's the norm, but those people are just humans as well.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:08 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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