TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

KalChoedan Archive

View 0 posts and 39 comments by KalChoedan 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)
43

While that's true, it's not a reason that we can't expect better from each other.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 04:07 PM
6

The topic of this post.
/r/MensRights28/11/18 10:28 PM
2

... though for what it's worth, that "called it" response was pretty much a classic straw man :)
/r/MensRights30/08/18 12:41 AM
2

It's also worth noting that this isn't particularly unusual behaviour for this woman - while she is characterising it this time as being about "my body my choice", her previous naked protest was over Brexit.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 11:34 AM
2

You shouldn't feel bad. This was a re-re-re-re-repost anyway (it's from 2016.)
/r/MensRights26/02/18 02:35 AM
6

Well we'll certainly be running headfirst into a brick wall if we can't consider each others opinions at all! :) Differences between cultures can be a very weird thing. You said in one of your other posts that it's "obviously aesthetic" and I do understand what you mean by that. I think a big part of the reason for the hostility is that for people from other cultures, it's just as "obvious" that it's a form of child abuse, it's mutilation, and all the other horrible ways to describe it that you …
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:47 PM
8

Well ok. That's fair enough. But I guess the first thing that springs to mind is - you do understand that's entirely subjective - not everyone agrees with that point of view, right? You might think it's more attractive - and I would assume, so does your wife, your own parents, and probably other peers though it might not be the sort of thing you discuss outside immediate family! But there are plenty of people who find the circumcised penis unattractive. So it's not like you're talking about an a…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:07 PM
579

<Checks to see if it's the poster with "homicide" spelled as "homocide"> Oh look, yes it is, but now with 20% more jpeg!
/r/MensRights09/01/17 12:48 PM
3

This re-re-re-re-repost still has the god-awful, can't take the image seriously after noticing it, typo of the word "homicide" as "homocide".
/r/MensRights11/04/16 11:36 AM
6

But that's the vast majority of people that describe themselves as "feminists", and virtually all of the ones who are vocal about it, particularly online. Trying to insist that feminism means "equality" rather than "female supremacy and misandry" is like trying to insist that "gay" means "happy", rather than "homosexual". That horse has long since bolted.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 05:55 PM
1

You are wrong. In the US, the legal standard that applies is the Brandenburg test which is as follows: "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" "#killallwhitemen" (or #killallblackmen, or #killalljews) might be offensive and inappropriate, but it certainly isn't credible - there being no evidence Mustafa is involved in any conspiracy to actually kill all white men nor that she would be in a position to do so herself - it doesn't m…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 04:37 PM
17

It's neither credible nor specific which are the legal standards you need to meet in the US to qualify as an actual threat. The UK has really shitty speech laws that allow this sort of thing through. Don't let the glee over the fact that this is a female supremacist misandrist getting her comeuppance distract you, arresting people for speech like this is a very, very bad thing. e: a word
/r/MensRights08/10/15 10:31 AM
4

No, he didn't say anything of the kind. If you consent to have sex with person A, but are tricked (in this case via blindfold) into having sex with person B, that is rape, and it doesn't matter what the genders of either you, person A or person B are in that scenario. Nobody said anything about anyone pretending to be a millionaire.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:25 PM
3

Unfortunately domas, the term "social justice warrior" has long since been hijacked by a group with predominantly misandrist/female supremacist aims, which are typically in direct opposition to Men's Rights. Most of us here would prefer not to be tarred with that brush, even if logically the name does make sense. If there's cognitive dissonance going round it's on the part of the people who've taken the name "social justice warriors" whilst actually fighting for anything but. In the mean time, I…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:00 PM
3

Hello "no true scotsman" fallacy.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:26 PM
15

Quite a few of his female colleagues past and present have come forward to say they never experienced so much as a hint of sexism from this man in their time working with him. This was not some kind of "last straw", these were (arguably poorly chosen) comments intended to be taken as humour, which have been massively overreacted to by the professional victim crowd, destroying this man's career for no good reason.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 01:47 PM
1

Ahem. He didn't say you were discriminating, and he hasn't responded to your comments on that topic because they were therefore non-sequitur. Replace the word "doing" in his first sentence with "acting" and you may get a better sense of what he intended to say - English is clearly not his first language and the inadvertent word swap was fairly clear. He was saying, "you are behaving as if the comments made by Hunt were mortally insulting", not "you yourself are behaving in an insulting manner."
/r/MensRights15/06/15 01:43 PM
11

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if due process were to be entirely removed in rape cases - making it so that only the word of the woman is required to establish the case beyond doubt - how many feminists around the world would then immediately accuse men of completely imaginary rapes which would nonetheless be prosecuted.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 09:28 PM
12

But unless that clear rejection came completely out-of-the-blue, there must have been an initial advance to inspire it. So that brings up back to, "how do you know they're unwanted until you try?"
/r/MensRights01/03/15 10:14 AM
7

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or it's my own inherent bias against her in this situation, but the way I read that was as if to further underscore how serious an aggressor she actually was, not as sympathy lines. Like - not only was she the aggressor, but she's combat trained etc.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 12:20 AM
35

She has in fact now deleted the original and reposted it from a (presumably) sock puppet account.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 08:29 PM
1

Based on some of the comments, I'm not sure it's completely clear to everyone reading, but this case is radically different from Elliot Rodgers in at least one very significant way - nobody has been killed. This kid attacked and stabbed 3 women with a steak knife, but in every case the injuries were described by medics as "superficial" - less than 2" in length with very little penetration.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 06:33 PM
1

What a strange killer. He didn't kill anyone, he attacked three women, stabbing each of them in the chest with a steak knife. The wounds were all described by the attending medics as superficial (less than 2" length with very little penetration.) Nobody has died, the kid has been tried for attempted murder.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 06:28 PM
3

All it takes is for them to knock on the door and for Mom to say, "Oh! Good afternoon Officer, do come in..." and consent has been given.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 11:56 AM
59

Discussed in some detail here (back in May, when this actually happened:) http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26dx5d/the_harassing_pms_and_threats_that_2xc_users_have/
/r/MensRights20/08/14 06:21 PM
2

*vigil
/r/MensRights17/05/14 09:24 AM
5

In fact I would argue that precisely the opposite of your statement is true - the knee-jerk immediate response to hit is the irrational part. Thinking it through, estimating the level of force required to do the job and preparing and using an appropriate weapon is completely rational. What may be at question is whether or not the resulting level of force is proportional or appropriate. But there's nothing at all inherently irrational about preparing and using a weapon.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 03:28 PM
20

Again, that's absolute rubbish. Of course the rise of the internet had a big impact, but gaming - and female awareness of it - was in full swing well before the mid-90s. I know, I was bloody well there. "En masse".
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:00 AM
26

Rubbish. It took off well before 1995. We were already having the equivalent of today's "Console wars" with the Spectrum and the C64 et al by the early 80s. C&VG magazine launched in 1981! Hell, the Atari 2600 hit the scene in 1977. Get off my lawn.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 07:34 AM
18

Those are great; I pretty much stopped paying attention to the atheist movement after elevatorgate so I haven't followed what's gone on since. That's a great catch-up.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:57 PM
2

Something newsnight something?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:55 PM
7

I agree! But athough it might be insensitive in some circumstances to bring up [other group]'s rights, you nonetheless need to consider everyone's rights when crafting any solution. In this case, though there is clearly a problem (vis the groping etc), a solution which in turn makes casual violence acceptable against a group of people (men in this case) is no solution at all. edit: phrasing, mother!
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:44 AM
10

Everywhere and everywhen is "the place and time for mens' [sic] rights", just the same as it is the place and time for women's rights. When you start making exceptions - for whatever reason - you are just creating the same damned problem over and over again. Either you support equal rights for and equal treatment of all people, everywhere, all the time, or you are yourself part of the problem.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:04 AM
2

I don't understand this at all. The announcement is of the baby's physical sex, surely? Apart from those complaining about it, who's said anything about gender?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:29 PM
6

Consummate v's!
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:38 PM
9

Indeed, this. Just look at the context of the OP, "cis-gendered" very clearly has a negative connotation. Hypocrisy much?
/r/MensRights05/03/13 01:28 PM
2

Untouchable is a metaphor when used "in terms of criticism"; to be literally untouchable she would need to have a force field. You didn't write "she is literally untouchable in terms of criticism", although that would be nonsensical in any case. She hasn't literally created a barrier - otherwise you'd be able to take a photograph of it. Rather, she has created a metaphorical barrier, which is my point. You are doing precisely what the article I linked describes, you are using "literally" to add …
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:25 PM
1

Literally
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:22 PM
5

2/10, far too obvious. Please try harder.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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