TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Johnnyrottenatbirth Archive

View 1 post and 50 comments by Johnnyrottenatbirth 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)
0

Johnnyrottenatbirth/r/MensRights30/09/18 11:33 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

FBI interview - correct. Sham. Show me factual blemishes on his record. Not your anecdotal bullshit and irrelevant opinion. No right minded individual on either side says she’s lying. We’re asking for evidence. She’s a PhD and should know you don’t state something without evidence. Not in her scientific career and certainly not in such a serious situation.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 03:18 PM
3

You speak about the SC as if his is the only vote that counts. I don’t believe the current court is so closely split that a decision in any particular case or matter couldn’t be made without him. And what proof do you have for his lying? Show me evidence. Show me other situations where he’s been proven a liar. Anything. Furthermore, show me evidence she should be given more credibility than he. The only thing she has that lends any weight is that you can’t prove a negative. But that’s just givin…
/r/MensRights30/09/18 02:05 PM
2

The last thing this circus is, is “justice”. This is the antithesis of justice and it’s ironic to me that it’s playing out in this arena. The idea that someone’s word can be taken over someone else’s, without more, is the epitome of “unjust”. Neither of these two people will receive justice although I’m not sure Dr. Ford is looking for justice anyway. My money is on her having a book deal before the year is out.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 11:08 AM
5

The same circus would result regardless of who is nominated. It seems to me that the media Is now in the business of bringing down the government by hook or, pardon the pun, by crook.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:46 AM
5

BRAVO. Brav-fucking-O! At last, a rational voice. I don’t think I could have agreed with you any more! I couldn’t care any less for him being a republican or a democrat but the handling of the whole thing has been shocking. Americans should be appalled.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:43 AM
2

It is hardly as simple as “sorry, no!” It may have escaped your notice but there's an all out public enquiry into the accusations. The FBI are now investigating. The Senate Judiciary Committee are giving this some pretty close scrutiny. Our argument isn’t that she’s lying - no one has adjudicated that either way - but that an otherwise credible man with an unblemished record other than these, as yet uncorroborated, allegations is being ruined before the truth of her claims has been found. We’re …
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:34 AM
2

You’re assuming she’s a victim of Kavanaugh. You’re assuming the truth of her statements without corroboration. You’re assuming that alcohol, nearly 40 years and trauma have not clouded her memory and made her confuse him for someone else. You’re also assuming he’s lying without any evidence of such behaviors outside of these accusations. That’s called “an unfounded accusation”. So we demand proof. That’s how this society works. To take her at her word, without more, is assuming his guilt based …
/r/MensRights30/09/18 10:03 AM
10

“Her memory of the incident is clear and seems complete.” You are out of your mind. In none of the interviews did she have a remotely clear, never mind complete, account of her story. I understand she was young, it was years ago and she may have been traumatized, but what are we supppsed to do? Just ignore the fact that she can’t corroborate anything and assume she has got it all right? You then destroy a mans career and life based on her foggy account of an incident that happened nearly 40 year…
/r/MensRights30/09/18 09:11 AM
1

Absolutely. They’ll blame white males for steam rolling them and marginalizing them again. The press will flood the screens with news of a shoddy FBI investigation blaming Trump for interfering. We’ll have weeks of protests and feminists crying for the cameras. A certain group of women will be outraged and we’ll have to hear all about it from Whoopi et al on The View. Then they’ll settle back down to blaming Trump for everything as usual.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 08:27 AM
15

What an ignoramus! But hey, she’s a woman so it must be true.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 03:36 AM
1

What do you mean “there are no male victims”?
/r/MensRights28/09/18 04:57 AM
-1

Da! I agree there are some absurdities in the law. The EU law example only clouds this argument. Have you seen the latest U.K. attack on mysoginist thinking becoming a hate crime?
/r/MensRights28/09/18 02:39 AM
1

This is an absolutely irrelevant argument but seeing as I started it, to your comment: Agreed. But so are affirmative action statutes, laws that take to do with women’s rights in the workplace, selective service laws, and on and on. But that’s not the point I am making. My point is that 1) while VAWA may now mean that male victims of DV end up in jail, there are no express words in the statute that say “let’s arrest the male victims” and 2) The statute served a legitimate aim when it was enacted…
/r/MensRights28/09/18 02:14 AM
1

Ha. Thanks man. An all round under appreciated band. As for your situation, tread carefully. As much as you love this woman, her drunkenness and lashing out May land you in a world of trouble that neither of you intends. But by that point it might be too late. God speed!
/r/MensRights28/09/18 02:04 AM
1

I think the hashtags that this fuck uses are more interesting than the rambling, illogical bullshit in the message body e.g. “#kill all men” and “#yesallmen”
/r/MensRights28/09/18 01:47 AM
1

You want evidence of my opinion? It’s an opinion. It is based on my reading of the legislation as written, and my thinking about it and deciding what it means to me. Isn’t that how most opinions are formed? Again, the unintended consequence might be that male victims are being jailed but that is not what the legislation says. Hence, my opinion is that the Act wasn’t written with the primary intention of jailing male victims of DV.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 01:42 AM
3

It is important to note that Kavanaugh is not bein tried here and so is still innocent in the eyes of the law. What’s happening here is that the press are spreading purely unproven allegations and smearing his reputation to make him seem unfit to serve as a SC justice. That’s the bit that’s doing the damage. There’s no need to prove him guilty if you can damage his credibility enough. It’s also an easier hurdle to clear than the usual preponderance of the evidence or whatever.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 12:27 AM
-1

I disagree that the VAWA was written with an aim to jail male victims of domestic violence. That’s is just nonsense. Perhaps the enforcement is, in fact, doing so but, as with most things government, the unintended consequences are catastrophic and unforeseen. But then we’re left to deal with the fallout, which, might very well be male victims being arrested despite being victims.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 09:43 PM
7

Gosh you are in a tough spot. If you were not married I think the sensible thing to do is to leave her and get on with your life but I’m aware you can’t easily do that. My fear is that somewhere down the line, when things are really bad between you, she hits you etc, you finally snap and either strike her in defense of yourself or you snag her somehow when trying to restrain her arms. Then she calls the cops and they will have no choice but to haul you away. I think you probably realize that unl…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:52 PM
-4

Its my opinion. You don’t have to like it. The VAWA was not written with the sole purpose of arresting and jailing male DV victims. The problem is in the enforcement. I don’t understand what you mean by “so if we keep doing the wrong things...”. Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:10 PM
-7

This is not a good thing. If it really is because of the Kavanaugh fiasco then it makes the GOP look like a petty old mans club and I hope to goodness there are other legitimate reasons for delaying the legislation renewal. The VAWA serves a worthy purpose, albeit, perhaps it’s not the best piece of legislation ever written and it’s enforcement is selective. But by refusing the continue it out of spite is not the way the GOP wants to be perceived. However, with that said, what did anyone expect?…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 06:30 PM
3

I have never been accused of anything like this and God willing, I will never be (do you think they sell insurance policies to cover this kind of thing?) but I am absolutely incensed by this entire drama. You really could not write anything like this. I am usually a reasonably rational person and I am also a white male and I’m absolutely enraged by the events going on. There is no question this woman/women must be treated with dignity and respect, as should any victim of any crime, but so should…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 06:06 PM
2

All unverifiable and irrelevant information that lends nothing to the legitimacy of the claims but if proven wrong, can be waived away as simple mistake without destroying her testimony as false. It’s like a kid lying to his mom about where he’s been. He’ll give far, far too much irrelevant detail about the clothes he was wearing and who was there, just to build a picture in his moms mind. But what it does do is give her supporters something to cling to and base their support upon. Because, clea…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 04:52 PM
7

I absolutely agree. I understand that victims take a differing degree of time to come forward and it’s counter-productive to push them and even makes things worse, but we have to approach this sensibly. One should not be precluded from asking a legitimate and important question in the name of careful and thoughtful investigation simply because one is of a particular socio-economic status. I think your point is part of a much larger debate. A certain group of people with seemingly constant access…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 03:38 PM
2

I agree with all of the above. Regarding your comment about throwing allegations around when convenient - the US political system is an utter joke. Consider when they're running for the party ticket - they run against each other, belittling their political record, slamming them, insulting them, slandering them. Then, when whoever gets the ticket is confirmed, the other guy comes out and talks about how the winner is the greatest guy in the world and the best man for the job. Its nuts!
/r/MensRights26/09/18 08:10 PM
2

That’s absolutely right. I gave up trying to be neutral and thoughtful when reading and responding to the issues they raised. Anything that’s not entirely on their side, even neutrality, is banned. But I think in many ways their advocates are beginning to realize the positions they take are so outrageous that it will only back fire to continue being so outlandish. I see more and more reports of women turning against that tide because they’re realizing it nothing more than a hate campaign against…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 04:47 PM
4

In my experience, posing anything on r/feminism that doesn’t completely align with their man-hating, women-as-victims-to-the-exclusion-of-all-reason-and-logic is utterly pointless. I used to try to read both this board and r/feminism to at least hear both sides but it was so difficult to maintain a rational mind when reading the illogical poison and lies that is being spread there. I mean absolute lies and outlandish opinions that blew my mind and I like to think I keep an open mind on things an…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 04:36 PM
6

Unfortunately though, as a male, pointing out logical fallacies in the argument or accusation or even asking for evidence before passing judgment in any claim of alleged impropriety by a man against a woman does a couple of things: firstly, automatically makes you a mysoginists. That seems to be the rule. Secondly, automatically means you’re victim blaming/disbelieving. That’s also inescapable. Take an example i had just this morning: A personal trainer my gf follows in Instagram posted somethin…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 06:59 AM
1

Seinfeld!
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:42 AM
2

I disagree with most of what you said here but specifically your conclusion. Or maybe I agree with it but for differing reasons. I partly agree that the GOP is indeed shoving this down people’s throats, and why not? This is an eminently qualified judge, a man of, at least in the last 35 years, unquestioned integrity and he has a very highly regarded judicial record from both sides. While I don’t agree with a lot Trump does, even I saw this guy as a slam-dunk. So it should have been a no brainer.…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:33 AM
1

It’s all a race to the bottom.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:03 AM
1

It’s funny you use the French to make your point. It very much reminds me of the 1793 French Laws of Suspects.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 05:00 AM
1

Agreed! She wrote it so well.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 04:48 AM
1

Agreed! Although I already find the whole thing sad and revolting.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 04:47 AM
3

Absolutely. The article was exactly what needs to be said. Take a fucking stand (no pun) for once and confirm him. Oh, and fuck that lying, opportunistic hag.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 03:46 AM
4

Yes, this is a direct hit to Obama’s legislation but note that the Trump administration reinjected some sense a year ago when they raised the bar but, for some reason, they allowed universities to continue to use the lower standard in these kinds of cases if other conditions were met. This decision says that’s not good enough and requires state funded institutions to use a higher standard (not defined) in cases such as these where the impact on the accused is so damaging.
/r/MensRights26/09/18 03:18 AM
20

My immediate reaction might be to punch her right in the face. I can’t wait for someone to do so. I think it’s inevitable. I imagine that he might even get away with it since she attacked him first with an admittedly highly concentrated bleach solution. Is it just me or does the reaction by many women to small and less significant issues like this and other seemingly unfair treatment by men seem to be out of all proportion? I dont mean stuff like Cosby or Weinstein but this crap here is utter bu…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 12:50 AM
1

I don’t know the Law in Victoria, Australia but in many countries, if the couple are married at the time of birth the husband is named as the presumptive father, by operation of law. The identity of the sperm donor is immaterial to legal paternity in these cases and serves to give legitimacy to the child as the full offspring of the relationship. Otherwise if things went south in the relationship years later you’d have fathers rejecting the kid and refusing to pay child support and mothers suing…
/r/MensRights26/09/18 12:35 AM
12

So much for “we’d rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail” Edit: My bad. Just read it was Blackstone who phrased “It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.”
/r/MensRights20/09/18 04:49 PM
2

It’s already being treated differently in the U.K. The state of the law is paving the way for misogyny to be considered a separate crime on a national footing. This statement was made by the head of the Law Commission saying that she will have the legal status of misogynistic acts reviewed with a view to ensure legislation in the country is up to date. The first police force to treat misogyny as the crime was Nottinghamshire, where the police force is already considering incidents like wolf-whis…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 07:44 PM
3

Yeah. That’s fair. Then I got nothin!
/r/MensRights07/09/18 02:05 PM
7

I’m shocked this isn’t getting more comments. The implications of this legislation are astounding. I can’t imagine a more important change in the law than something like this. If “misogyny” becomes a hate crime, any act that a male commits against a female could result in his arrest, conviction and requirement that he register as a sex offender FOR LIFE. That includes school boys who are the victim of hormones and ignorance. That includes men who have upset a woman in some way and she becomes ir…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 06:18 AM
2

Indeed Creazy tabled the “motivated by misogyny” amendments to the Bill against upskirting and it looks like this particular legislation will not now contain those amendments after Lucy Frazer’s comments. However, later, Frazer announced that the Law Commission will review their definition of “hate crime” to determine if misogyny should be included. Meaning, if it is amended, misogyny will be a crime in and of itself: “But, the minister added: "We as a government are concerned to ensure our hate…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 05:41 AM
8

Perhaps not quite along the same lines as abortion laws but Selective Service requires all males between X and Y years old to register for the military draft should it ever be reinstated. As yet, females don’t have to do that. The result of the law affecting only males. I’m not quite sure that’s what the questions is looking for though.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 04:26 AM
5

I read it that the MP is asking the government for, and has been granted, a review of current and pending legislation to see if there is a loophole by which misogyny could be used as motive to increase a crime against women to a hate crime. It's being reported in the context of up skirting but I didn't read a particular restriction. Perhaps I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights06/09/18 05:40 PM
5

I'm not convinced it will be that difficult. Courts have a tendency to enforce things according to the public attitude to an issue at the time. That's what courts are supposed to do, within the confines of law, of course. If a court wants to find someone acted with misogyny then it could do so quite easily given that the DPP will argue circumstantial evidence in support of misogyny. But the article suggests that the government is going to review current and upcoming legislation to see if "misogy…
/r/MensRights06/09/18 05:30 PM
19

It’s not just social media banned lists, they want to make misogyny a crime by itself and put men who are motivated by misogyny on the sexual offenders registry. Ok...Let’s think this through: in the U.K., anyone may complain to the police that they think a crime is being committed and the police are required to investigate there and then. If they find a crime has been committed, they have no discretion but to arrest. So, if misogyny is made a crime in and of itself, or if any act conducted by a…
/r/MensRights06/09/18 01:08 PM
1

Age is nothing to do with misogyny.
/r/MensRights05/09/18 06:40 AM
8

Was this article really in men’s health? I’m stunned. They’ve just crossed a line here and I don’t think it’s recoverable. I’ve been a reader for years and have often disagreed with some of the garbage they print but never has any of it been so ignorant and blatantly biased as to bite the hand that feeds them. This piece cuts to the bone in my opinion. Not only is the article utterly devoid of objectivity and reason, it’s just plainly low-level garbage. It’s describing EVERYONE, male or female, …
/r/MensRights02/09/18 05:39 AM
1

I was struck by this too. What really bugged me was her response made no attempt to explain what she means by any of her titles but only served to dismiss those who dare question her. She cites no sources other than her friends (who are friends probably because they are like-minded), she doesn’t explain why she comes to these conclusions and uses a preemptive ad hominem approach to dismiss anyone who thinks she’s wrong. It’s just circular logic too - if you disagree, you must be X; if you’re X, …
/r/MensRights31/07/18 07:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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