TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Joeboy Archive

View 0 posts and 96 comments by Joeboy 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)
-8

Let me know if you ever find out :-)
/r/MensRights03/11/15 10:21 PM
-12

It's not my logic, it's the logic of the UK legal system. If they deleted it before it was reliably logged as evidence and the person denied possessing it, then the case would almost certainly be dropped, as in this case. Screen shots and news articles fall well short of the standards of evidence required in UK courts, for reasons that are hopefully obvious. Edit: Tell me why you think I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 08:08 PM
-15

So what's the hard evidence, that would have any relevance in a British court of law? Edit: She denies using that hashtag, and as far as I know there is no good evidence to prove otherwise. What do you expect the CPS to do? The fact you are sure she used it is not good evidence as far as a judge is concerned.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 06:04 PM
-14

AIUI no such tweet is currently visible. What evidence is there, that would have any standing in a court of law?
/r/MensRights03/11/15 05:59 PM
-19

What is the hard evidence that she used the #KillAllWhiteMen hashtag? Edit: Ok guys, you obviously disagree with me because you're downvoting me. So seriously, what is this hard evidence? The only evidence referred to so far is invisible, which I believe would normally render it inadmissable in court. Edit2: Seriously, explain it to me. Do you think the CPS has sufficient evidence for a prosecution? How? Edit3: Because my comments have been downvoted to invisibility, I'll save you the trouble of…
/r/MensRights03/11/15 04:49 PM
2

Thanks to anti-discrimination legislation, In the UK it's illegal for insurance companies to discriminate on the base of gender.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 04:53 PM
7

Also to be fair, this is a highly non-influential book, written 22 years ago, which is only really notable for the, er, boldness of its claims. I notice Julie Bindel doesn't seem to have a problem with meat eating anyway.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 12:17 PM
3

"Now"? Here is an industrial hip-hop remix of the author reading out that quote, from twenty-one years ago.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 10:23 AM
2

In fairness while /MR seems to like upvoting stupid bullshit, it also often seems to upvote decent refutations of the stupid bullshit. I don't really understand it, presumably it's different people.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 09:15 AM
26

She was arguing that given the existence of a "universal rule" that women and children should be saved first in cases of shipwreck, the observance of that rule on the Titanic didn't invalidate her opinion that the age of chivalry was dead. Which she may or may not have been right about, but she wasn't saying that men should give their lives to save women, as people here seem to think. Incidentally a paragraph has been removed from between the two shown on the left of the image, which read thus: …
/r/MensRights22/10/11 09:49 AM
7

and, arguably, my axe.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 11:23 PM
8

Well, that would be in keeping with what it says in this feminism FAQ
/r/MensRights10/10/11 11:00 PM
2

I think your disagreement with the parent poster isn't about the meaning of "privilege", it's about what constitutes "the rules". People who like talking about privilege tend to consider social norms and other unwritten systemic behaviours as part of "the rules" for these purposes. I am taking no position on the matter at this time.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 10:18 PM
8

Out of interest, why did your feminist friend send you this seemingly anti-feminist pic?
/r/MensRights10/10/11 10:06 PM
2

I have the one in table 6-3 - physical abuse is 48% father, 56% mother, sexual abuse is 80% father, 20% mother. For physical abuse that again seems (to me) consistent with the fact that mothers tend to be the primary caregivers. I have a feeling you were going somewhere with this, but I'm about to disappear so won't be able to respond till tomorrow.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 10:23 PM
6

I certainly have no objection to the goal of equality in custody grants, and I agree with you about society's expectations of men and women as caregivers. However I think lumping "neglect" together with "abuse" as a single statistic is misleading. If we're being fair the following passage from the NIS-4 report ought to be presented, as well as the combined statistics: The predominant perpetrator’s sex differs for abuse and neglect. The majority of neglected children (86%) had female perpetrators…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 09:40 PM
4

I admit I don't know a lot about the subject, but I have a hard time believing "educational neglect" is an active form of abuse.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 09:17 PM
4

From a brief glance, it looks like most of the NIS-4 Maltreatment instances are classified as "neglect", including "Educational neglect". I don't think these statistics are about "child abuse" in the sense you suggest. In fact it seems to me that a statistic about "neglect" is inevitably primarily reflection of who is expected to be looking after the child.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 07:10 PM
36

It looks like none of this takes account of the amount of time the child was in the mother's care vs the father's care. I would imagine that in families where both parents are present, on average the child is likely to be in the mother's care significantly more than the father's. That's surely going to skew the numbers quite heavily.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 03:07 PM
2

Uh, he did sexually assault her I think he just plain assaulted her.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 05:20 PM
1

Aren't you doing to the rest of the subreddit what you are complaining people are doing about the article? Not really. The equivalent would be complaining that 100 comments out of 3 billion had accepted the premise.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:44 PM
0

You're only one data point though. I think a lot of men were pretty interested in Amanda Knox. Some even noted that she seemed less sexy after she was acquitted. There are some fucked up men, and there are some fucked up women. By and large, none of us are particularly romantically keen on murderers.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:40 PM
1

the article's implied premise that "women" (all of them? Lots? Most?) are like this To be fair it's only really the headline that suggests this is anything other than a minority phenomenon.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 03:49 PM
1

Then you either don't listen Maybe - who is lobbying against the principle of equalising the pension age, rather than the timescale?
/r/MensRights22/09/11 07:24 PM
2

Would you guys not be a bit pissed off if you gave up your job, then found the government wasn't going to give you the pension it said it would? These complaints appear here regularly, accompanied by the interpretation that women are protesting the plan to equalise the pension age. I've never actually heard of anyone protesting the plan to equalise the pension age, I've only heard of people protesting the government seriously screwing over their retirement plans.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 11:15 AM
1

Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true that people who oppose income disparity between men and women see it as a simple issue of employment discrimination. Secondly, the ability to earn money is a more significant factor in most people's lives than the ability to get cheap motor insurance. Thirdly, because of equality legislation I suspect most people here oppose, this problem is now (or at least shortly) solved.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:27 AM
10

All those European countries you think are so much better than the USA have mandatory 100% conscription for everyone You are confused. We don't.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:35 AM
19

Next up: 1,000,000 precautions before going outside.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:58 PM
4

Where do you live, that 99% of homeless people you see are male? That's definitely not true for me (although I'd say men were a clear majority).
/r/MensRights27/06/11 12:28 PM
4

I guarantee you there are men lobbying the government about the proposal to raise their pension age.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:40 PM
3

The new proposal is to phase it in by 2018 instead of 2020, which admittedly is technically also "by 2020" if you want to be a dick about it.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:38 PM
-10

Who is bitching about male privilege and whining about the pension age being raised sooner than expected? These are elderly women approaching retirement, not third wave feminist bloggers.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:33 PM
0

They're asking to government to stick to its election promises (equalisation of pension age phased in by 2020). Doesn't seem particularly whiney.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:26 PM
4

This protest is organised by a charity for old people, not a feminist organisation. From what I can tell it's not a protest against the principle of equalising the pension age, it's about old people who will have to work for longer than they were told they would by the ruling coalition parties' manifestos.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:04 PM
3

Why is it my job to wire a plug? Can we not teach everybody to do useful things?
/r/MensRights27/10/10 08:29 AM
11

We don't make laws to stop people doing things they don't want to do. There would be no point in such laws. We make laws precisely to deter people from doing things they would otherwise want to do. It's also natural that people want to take other people's possessions by force, or get angry and want to hurt or even kill people. We have laws against those things because on the whole people think that those are things are wrong. It's a legitimate intellectual position to object to the rule of law i…
/r/MensRights06/10/10 12:16 AM
2

The suggestion that you're actually supposed to observe the suggested list of precautions is tongue in cheek. It's seriously suggesting that having sex is too legally risky to contemplate because there are laws against rape, child sexual abuse, incest, assault etc. At least that seems to be how people here are reading it, including the submitter.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 07:55 AM
25

Maybe because it's incredibly (and perhaps deliberately) stupid. Next up: 27,000,000 reasons not to go outside.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 05:45 PM
9

I'd probably use my fingers rather than a stick.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:43 PM
1

As I've said before, it could go either way. It's impossible to tell. The Telegraph article doesn't say that the women's pension age will start rising before the men's one. You can tell that by reading the words.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 03:37 PM
1

It is. I would think it was obvious that the current demographic and financial situation doesn't merit lowering the pension age.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 03:00 PM
1

Why 60 rather than say, 23?
/r/MensRights05/08/10 02:53 PM
1

If, as seems to be the case, we're accepting the anachronistic Telegraph article as the original source I don't see why you're still trying to justify your position using part of an article that clearly doesn't represent it accurately. One thing's for sure, men will have to wait many years to have the same retirement age as women, and that isn't fair. Nor would it be fair if people approaching retirement were confronted with an immediate unforeseen six years of extra work.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 02:20 PM
2

That article does say that, actually. Where? I can't see anything about when the ages would start increasing, only about when they would reach 66. Do you not see anything odd about an article quoting things that were written a month after it was published? I am suggesting that your Telegraph article probably isn't the source, although I'm happy to pretend it is if you prefer.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 01:46 PM
1

Do we agree that that article doesn't say that women's pension ages will start increasing later than mens'? If so I'm happy to overlook the fact it was published over a month later than the one that apparently references it.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 01:23 PM
-1

The article's fourth paragraph contains a brief and sloppy paraphrase of something from another publication. It's not exactly a smoking gun.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 01:09 PM
1

Can you find the phrase "For women, the pension age would be lifted a few years later" on the Telegraph website? Google can't, and nor can the Telegraph's article search facility. I wonder what they actually said. You are trying to make a big deal out of some slightly sloppy wording.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 12:40 PM
4

They aren't.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 12:10 PM
2

They aren't "starting with the age increase on men". The article is a bit vague, and your headline is actively misleading, but women's penson ages will be rising from the same point as mens', and rising faster.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 12:09 PM
15

The plan is to raise the pension age from 60 to 66 for women and from 65 to 66 for men. Because that's a much larger increase for women, it will rise faster for women but hit 66 sooner for men. I don't know the exact timescales or details, but in principle it seems unobjectionable.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 11:48 AM
2

I guess you're just like the rest of us. No, I really don't think he is.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:45 PM
3

I think if something claims to be copied from a (nameless) Internet forum, has no usernames in it, reads like a piece of fiction and contains text that Google can't find anywhere on the internet except on pages where people are using it to illustrate the evilness of women, I think that's pretty strong grounds for suspicion. I'm not requiring academic citations, just a tiny, tiny shred of common sense. If this was a real conversation it would have low but non-zero evidential value. As a piece of …
/r/MensRights08/07/10 07:04 PM
11

It might be made up or not....we will probably never find out Not unless someone comes up with a way of searching Internet.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:14 PM
7

At which point you would say, "Meh anecdotal." And s/he would be right. Anecdotal is still a step up from fictional though.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:11 PM
15

Not disgusted as much as horrified by the credulousness of people here. This is not a real discussion between real people. Obviously.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:09 PM
12

That's a direct link to the same text, not the original discussion. I'm guessing the original discussion doesn't exist, but citations are welcome.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:06 PM
2

I didn't, but maybe other people who have seen the same story (albeit from a different source) twice before here in the last 48 hours.
/r/MensRights26/06/10 08:42 AM
4

I may be missing it, but I'm not seeing anyone questioning the need for men's rights activism there. I see people questioning the form of it.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 01:45 PM
1

The men’s rights section typically questions the very need for men’s rights activism at all I recognized this as well I'm highly dubious about that. I would say the typical template for a sceptical comment is along the lines of "I came here because I think men get a raw deal eg. in [situtation X], but [statement Y] makes you look [like crazy misogynists and/or as bad as the hardline feminists]". I don't think I've ever seen a comment here suggesting that all men have all the rights they should.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 01:19 PM
5

Not sure where you'd find thousands of hairy lesbians on reddit. 2x is full of women talking about how to wax themselves properly to please their menfolk. feminisms is largely full of men and trans women. Also, it's a funny article about men having power women don't have access to so I don't see why hairy lesbians would object to it particularly.
/r/MensRights15/05/10 08:19 AM
1

Better than having your colon on display.
/r/MensRights12/05/10 02:18 PM
4

Doesn't that mean you're the one refusing to serve the fries?
/r/MensRights30/04/10 10:07 PM
12

Actually what they want to do is equalise the pension age at 66 for both men and women. Because currently the pension age for men is 65 and the pension age for women is 60, they plan to phase the ages at different rates, so women don't suddenly find they have to work an extra six years. This is the first and probably last time I will defend a Tory manifesto. Edit: If you were inclined to spin this differently, you could say they want to raise the pension age 3.6 times faster for women than for m…
/r/MensRights26/04/10 09:51 PM
2

No one should be forced into celibacy I'm not talking about forcing anybody into anything. If having/pursuing sex with women causes men to be oppressed, surely it is liberating to proclaim that you don't have to do it. Homosexuality isn't a choice Deciding to explore it is a choice, and again it might be a liberating one. So why does it not have the popularity in the Mens' Rights movement that it's had in the Feminist movement?
/r/MensRights09/04/10 07:31 PM
-1

I wonder why there isn't more promotion of celibacy or homosexuality in the Mens' Rights movement? Those would seem to nullify the majority of the complaints MRAs voice. Neither of them are such terrible options are they? Lesbianism has been pretty popular in the Feminist movement for decades, for similar reasons. Why not just stop chasing skirt, if it causes such problems?
/r/MensRights09/04/10 06:32 PM
6

I don't see any particular reason to assume I'm less well off than if I'd married, either in time or money. It's hard to compare against a hypothetical situation. Anyway, I still think marriage is a fairly bad plan.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 06:01 PM
19

"Survey of men reveals men are awesome"
/r/MensRights14/03/10 02:36 PM
0

Closest I can do is this: In one study, first done in 1968 and then replicated in 1983, college students were asked to rate identical articles according to specific criteria. The authors' names attached to the articles were clearly male or female, but were reversed for each group of raters: what one group thought had been written by a male, the second group thought had been written by a female, and vice versa. Articles supposedly written by women were consistently ranked lower than when the very…
/r/MensRights27/02/10 11:42 AM
1

Apparently the proposed wording applies equally to either spouse.
/r/MensRights26/02/10 06:41 PM
3

I'm agreeing with you. Ah, cool, sorry. You are clearly a person of great wisdom ;-)
/r/MensRights25/02/10 11:54 PM
2

I suspect airline spokespeople are trained not to say things like "women don't like to find men have pissed all over the seat".
/r/MensRights25/02/10 11:36 PM
2

I think it is a bit of a stretch from "Companies operate stupid CYA policies in the name of child protection" to "Women will customarily accuse you of paedophilia if you compliment their children".
/r/MensRights25/02/10 10:46 PM
2

Security guard is an arse. Screwed up situation, but not the same situation described in the cartoon.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 09:53 PM
4

Is that directed at me? If so please can you clarify what you mean? Edit: I'm going to guess that you mean my argument is nullified because the guy was not the father. In which case I would counter that in UK law it's still not considered OK to kill kids, even if they are someone else's.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 09:15 PM
5

This seems to back me up. I'm not going to argue very hard that I'm likely to abuse children though.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 07:51 PM
15

He wasn't the child's father, he was the mother's partner Ok, my bad, sorry. My reason for posting this story is that it is yet another example of the courts dealing with women differently to men regarding horrific crimes. Since the story is about a man and a woman being convicted of the same crime, for the same reason, it's not a very good example of that.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 07:34 PM
11

Article says mother and father were both convicted of manslaughter after submitting diminished responsibility defences.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 06:12 PM
6

Does this really represent anybody's real life experience? I've never noticed any suspicion when I've taken an interest in people's children. When I've offered to look after people's kids they've been extremely grateful. I've been in a stepfather-ish role twice and, although that's actually made me statistically relatively likely to abuse my partners' kids, nobody has ever suggested there was any issue with leaving them in my care. Child protection issues do tend to bring out hysteria and illogi…
/r/MensRights25/02/10 05:45 PM
1

Where will this money come from, if neither the defendant nor the plaintiff had it to start off with?
/r/MensRights20/02/10 12:03 AM
1

I just discovered that reddit does indeed award something called an inciteful comment trophy if your comment spawns lots of discussion. I had assumed it was just a typo by the OP. Live and learn.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 07:52 PM
1

Ah, I concede the point that the poor might be able to sue the rich, at least in egregious circumstances. These are not those circumstances though.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 07:15 PM
0

Who pays them? The defendant won't be able to pay the plaintiff. The plaintiff won't be able to pay the lawyers.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 07:06 PM
-1

I can't see why any company is going to take on business where you don't get paid, whether or not you win. Unless it's pro-bono material, which this isn't.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 07:00 PM
5

dan2010's insightful comments on JamEaterBlues: JamEaterBlues is a trailerpark hooker ... I hate this bitch and I hope she dies painfully. I'd like to kill this bitch myself. I fucking hate her.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:47 PM
2

That sounds like pretty crappy behaviour. Can you link to examples of this stalking? I just scanned a couple of pages of her recent comments and she comes across as entirely sane and reasonable there to me.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:32 PM
0

Remember, these feminazis can be sneaky. I'm not saying dan2010 is secretly a feminazi, but I wouldn't put it past them to try something like this.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:18 PM
1

Don't you think somebody browsing this subreddit could easily form that opinion? He or she is painting with a pretty broad brush, but there are lots of comments that are in line with those views, which are often upvoted and rarely challenged.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:14 PM
2

But presumably there'd be no chance of recouping the enormous expense involved in suing. Our libel laws are for rich people/companies. I'm not sure the law is actually a sensible way to deal with people writing stupid, malicious comments on facebook anyway.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:03 PM
7

All the comments I've seen from women that addressed male birth control have been positive about it. They have disagreed with the author of the article. Ie. they pretty much agree with you about it, unless I'm misunderstanding. The only thing in the article that actually resembles a piece of data was the citation of a survey that said women were "enormously enthusiastic" about it.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 07:03 PM
17

If the Daily Fail isn't enough to damn this, here's the website of the programme that conducted this survey. I am not convinced that this is a serious sociological study.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:40 PM
9

we don't have the 2X'ers flooding in here and championing this as a great thing for humanity Pretty sure every one of the comments I've seen from women has disagreed with the article.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:24 PM
3

We speaks lark dis innit.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:08 PM
8

That's not how British people speak.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 05:58 PM
10

as Professor Richard Anderson of the University of Edinburgh says: ‘When we carried out surveys of women, they were enormously enthusiastic ... personally, I’m not so sure. We have a survey that says this pill is popular with women, and a bunch of opinion and anecdote claiming otherwise. This is a deliberately provocative piece in a right wing UK tabloid. I'm sorry, but you are being played.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 05:49 PM
3

I mean an account that exists to repeatedly tell a gag. Eg. Captain_Obvious stated the obvious, joke_explainer explained jokes. I'm positing that typicalredditer is satirizing typical redditors' opinions. But I might well be wrong.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 05:07 PM
1

I'm guessing from the username this is a novelty account.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 02:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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