TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Kingreaper Archive

View 2 posts and 74 comments by Kingreaper 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)
50

discussionKingreaper/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:13 PM
15

resourceKingreaper/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:27 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
19

In canada 75% of murdered indigenous people are men, along with 42% of those reported missing. There's a large campaign for awareness of missing and murdered indigenous women. https://abo-peoples.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/MMWIG2S-Fact-Sheets-RD-September-28th-2023.pdf
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/07/25 02:14 PM
14

"Follow Your Dreams". Yes, people at the top are very often people who followed their dreams. But most people who follow their dreams aren't particularly successful. And a decent number sleepwalk off a cliff while dreaming of being a star.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/07/25 01:55 PM
3

For some reason, when women think of men, they tend to think of either completely awful men, or of men who are significantly more successful than average. It's visibility bias. The nature of modern media means that women "see" more exceptional men than normal men - both the exceptionally violent (in scary crime-reports and action films) and the exceptionally successful (in movies, TV, and political/economic news stories) They likely see more average men in a literal sense, but those are NPCs in …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/05/25 04:27 PM
20

I think you're thinking of it too conspiratorially. It's simpler than that - Men and Women are objectively different; so studies find differences. When the study finds a natural advantage for men, that is not widely shared because everyone considering sharing it goes "am I willing to be called a misogynist in order to share this info?" and often the answer is no. When the study finds a natural advantage for women, it gets shared freely, because no-one is worried about being called a misandrist. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/24 02:40 PM
1

I feel like the reason you're finding this passage weird is because you're assuming it's aimed at you - and it's not. You answer the first two questions with "no" so the lessons intended for people who answer them "yes" don't apply to you - you don't need to practise being free of your father because you're not bound by him. You're doing the equivalent of reading a book on car maintenance, finding a section saying "is your engine knocking? Do X" and ranting about how you don't need to do X becau…
/r/MensRights03/01/24 01:09 AM
7

Unless they start doing paternity tests, they're never going to be able to accurately say who the genetic father is. What they can say is who (male or female) has chosen to co-parent with the genetic mother.
/r/MensRights03/01/24 12:35 AM
8

Pussy meaning timid almost certainly comes from "pussy-cat", where "puss" comes from the germanic word for cat. In case that seems odd to you, consider that "scaredy-cat" is a standard term these days - housecats have a well-established association with cowardice. Still a dual origin, but not the one you're thinking.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/22 02:25 AM
9

For various historical reasons "bastard" is almost always used as an insult for a man, very rarely for a woman*; despite the fact that by the standard definition it applies equally to both. *(at least, in Britain and on American television)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/22 02:21 AM
3

If I have twenty five men apply, and 5 women, and I hire 4 women and 6 men most people would say that the women had an 80% chance of being hired, and the men a 24% chance of being hired. What would you say the chances were?
/r/MensRights05/09/22 08:58 PM
5

You said men were more likely to be hired - which is a different claim from more total men being hired.
/r/MensRights05/09/22 06:57 PM
7

So far though, men are 3x more likely to be hired. You assume that an equal number of men and women are applying, which is provably false.
/r/MensRights05/09/22 05:53 PM
8

Look, when you want to talk about something I said, come on back. You are just arguing with an imaginary person right now. The person I'm arguing with is you. You, the person who responded to male victims by pointing to male perpetrators - who believes that such a response would be dismissing the victims if done to black people, but is all good when done to men - you the person who cannot bring themself to say: "the existence of male generals in no way lessens the victimhood of a man forced to d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:48 AM
8

Does it change anything about the perpetrators? Yes, but I wasn't talking about the perpetrators, I was talking about how you dismiss male victims. You can repeat this as often as you like. It's not going to get more true because you repeat it. It's not going to get any less true because you deny it. It'll only get less true if you take a good hard look at yourself and say "a male victim is no less a victim because he's male" and "the existence of male generals in no way lessens the victimhood o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:19 AM
7

That doesn't change anything about the victims does it? EDIT: This response makes it clear you KNOW you're dismissing the victims, you just think it's okay because they're men - and you think they DESERVE to be dismissed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:08 AM
5

Nothing about what I said "dismisses male victims". You really don't see it? To bring back the analogy you were confused by earlier: If someone was talking about black people getting murdered, and PhoenixMaster responded "It's mostly black people killing them. And some black people make lots of money in gangs from all those killings." would you still feel that the response wasn't dismissing the victims?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 03:00 AM
4

Do you not get that a social power structure can perpetuate power remaining in the hands of men as a group while also harming some individual men? Do you not get that that is the precise behaviour I described you engaging in - dismissing male victims on the basis that there were male perpetrators? You call it a strawman, but it's an accurate description of your form of bigotry.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:49 AM
5

No I have not. If you want to argue against a straw person who said that you can do it in your own time, you don't need to get me involved. Did you or did you not react to someone talking about how men are victimised in war by saying that men were the generals?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:42 AM
8

You've seemingly been arguing that male victims don't count because you can point to male perpetrators. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the men being victimised and the men doing the victimising were completely separate people - likely because you prefer to view men negatively, and find it hard to do so if you recognise that they're victims.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 02:23 AM
8

Feminism was portrayed as just a bunch of Misandrists when it was getting started, back when the primary goals where things that are taken for granted now like female suffrage - there's no getting around it, eventually we just have to bulldoze through it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/08/22 01:55 PM
49

Would you say the same to an Arabic person who refused to march alongside racists? A tran woman who wouldn't match with proud TERFs? The stated cause may be noble but if the protest is actively declaring its bigotry against you why would you join?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/22 02:06 PM
1

And all of these creature comforts and labor saving devices to make women's lives easier were invented by men. Not all of them. First one that comes to mind is the Dishwasher - invented by a noblewoman who felt her maids weren't good enough at washing her dishes.
/r/MensRights09/04/22 02:35 PM
1

https://www.np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/pc8uof/unpacking_the_chuck_derry_ama/
/r/MensRights27/08/21 04:17 PM
11

There are plenty of people on /r/MensLib who really support men. The problem is that there are an unknown number of mods on there who will delete criticism of their ideology, any criticism of the Patriarchy model. And no accountability for the mods that do so. I was active there for a long time before I gave up in the face of repeated deletions of my most popular comments.
/r/MensRights27/08/21 04:16 PM
1

Wait, you’re actually saying that women attempt SUICIDE but NOT to kill themselves, so they can attempt it all over again later, like some kind of fetish or game??! It's a thing that 100% definitely happens, and has been studied - people with a higher intent to die use methods where death is more likely. People with a lower intent to die, who want to leave it up to fate or who want to be saved, use methods where death is less likely. Women who attempt suicide have a significantly lower average i…
/r/MensRights20/08/21 04:06 PM
2

Not disputing the second half at all, I agree, but your first half is just...nothing. Women attempt suicide more than men, men just succeed more, so it's not that they're more suicidal. Actually, it is. Women aren't too incompetent to kill themselves, no matter how much you want to believe in female inferiority in that field. Women on average "attempt suicide" with less intention of succeeding, and the fact they don't succeed means they can do it repeatedly. So with one man and one woman who bot…
/r/MensRights20/08/21 03:07 PM
5

Apparently they need "an email that we will recognise", but I'll take a look at the ones I can see.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 10:12 PM
4

Any chance you have a link to somewhere I could read those toolkit and show others?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 09:42 PM
10

I have been warned that some of the staff at Respect Men's Advice Line will victim-blame and try to convince you that you're the abuser. I don't know how prevalent that is - but if they do so it may help to call back and report them. I don't know their internal policies etc. but I know that they do help men at least some of the time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:28 PM
15

I'm glad that you have that strength and internal stability. It's not an easy thing to ignore what society says about you - even more difficult for those of us who had it coming from parents (and early teachers) as well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:23 PM
8

Oh, yeah, I remember that campaign - and the reaction was definitely unjustifiedly one-sided. Reading through that blog post it honestly makes me cringe at the way the author thinks of women though "Women’s innate solipsism" stands out as a... worrying statement. So while it's a good source for the image, not the best source for discussion :p
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:21 PM
5

It does. Unfortunately it makes us take pause at the fact we're left-leaning while the right wing are the ones who actually stand up for men. And then we look around and realise that just because the right wing does a good thing once every few years, often out of spite, doesn't mean it's worth supporting them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 08:03 PM
1

Fighting fire with fire only works if you can get out ahead of the blaze. It's too late for that re: toxic masculinity/femininity. On that issue at least we need to focus on rebuilding - what is called Toxic Masculinity is mostly Internalised Misandry, and should be talked about as such. At the very least, keep the pure anti-feminism to anti-feminist spaces rather than pro-male ones.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 07:56 PM
10

The link doesn't work - you're probably seeing it because you have it cached.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/05/21 07:42 PM
9

Again, would you have used the exact same sentence but substituted Jews? Well, no, because Jews don't tend to believe Jesus loves them...
/r/MensRights17/04/21 11:34 AM
3

Well, see, if MRAs would just shut up about the problems then everyone could ignore them and pretend they didn't exist, rather than acknowledging that they're going unaddressed. Thus it's MRAs fault that they're going unaddressed.
/r/MensRights01/09/20 10:37 AM
6

Those are their demands. Those are the demands of a particular small subset, that being the BLM Oshkosh organisation. Other subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement are actively asking for the complete dissolution of the police and justice system. Stop pretending that everyone in the movement is agreed on a single end goal - Black Lives Matter is a movement based around pointing out a problem; Black Lives Matter Oshkosh doesn't get to speak for everyone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/20 07:39 PM
4

The copy pasted post with the actual demands of one BLM branch, created long after the BLM movement started (specifically created about 6 weeks ago by Black Lives Matter Oshkosh)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/07/20 07:30 PM
3

I think this particular case is on the lower end of severity of sexual offences and I certainly don't think you should have your employability and reputation permanently ruined. But still, you are a sex offender and deserve to be one. To your mind, what is the purpose of the sex offender registry?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/20 02:12 PM
-1

It’s not best to ignore the daily mail, they publish stories like this others won’t. They also publish lies. If you can't find a better source than the daily mail then you might as well just make shit up yourself.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/05/20 10:39 PM
3

From the perspective of the attractive seller, they are most often exploited by a buyer who has enough money to make the seller do what they would rather not. It is, in effect, non-consensual sex. Or sex slavery in the worst cases. It's only non-consensual if all work is non-consensual because you're doing it for money. So it's definitely "sex work", you're really just arguing that work is non-consensual.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/20 01:52 PM
2

You really think they couldn't save money by lowering their safety standards on these projects? Because the simple fact is they could. It'd kill a bunch of men (and a few women) if they did so, but without government interference they'd still do it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 02:33 PM
1

Sure you can, you just replace them with new desperate workers - because no collective power (through government) means that there are plenty of those. Or you move on with your money and do something else after sickening the workers at your glowing watch factory and giving many of them cancer. These aren't hypothetical situations, they're history. And saying "companies aren't doing it at the moment (when being prevented from doing so) so we don't need to prevent them from doing so" is a large pa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 02:27 PM
1

I think you misunderstood me. Government is a monopoly. I believe in smaller government because whomever is on top has an unequal amount of control. The less power we give them, the less they can corrupt. My end goal is to give people, not government, as much power as possible. The problem with this position is that the government needs to be one of the ways in which people use their power if we're going to avoid a ton of co-ordination problems and tragedy-of-the-commons situations. Polluting th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/10/19 02:21 PM
3

I am truly starting to wonder about reading comprehension here. If that isn't what you intended to say, try restating it in a different way that isn't bigoted. okay, you're just inventing things, assigning them to "me", and pretending I believe them. No, I'm pointing out what I believe to be the underlying cause of your obvious willingness to treat men in ways you know to be bigoted when used against black people. If you didn't know that what you were saying was bigoted you would be willing to s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 10:46 PM
3

these things are different because the violence "against" men is part and parcel of men committing violence. And there we have it: you're blaming every man for things some men do, which is what you claimed you weren't doing. by changing what I wrote, it no longer becomes my statement. I would never write that about black Americans, because it doesn't apply to black Americans, because race and gender are not the same. No, you would never write it about black americans because in your subculture i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 10:19 PM
3

You're saying that violence against men is qualitatively different than violence against women because some men engage in violence. Again: You're unwilling to support your statement when applied to black people, because you know your statement is bigoted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 10:08 PM
3

well good thing I'm not doing that Ah, so you weren't the one who wrote: "Violence against women" is a problem because the vast majority of male-on-male violence is, in context, fairly predictable. Men are more likely to choose violent circumstances than women. We can talk about why that's the case - for example, gang violence is linked to a lack of opportunity in the inner city, itself a symptom of racism - but violence against women is qualitatively different from male-on-male violence. That w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 09:49 PM
5

I'm saying that judging people based on the actions of others of the same race/gender/sexuality/whatever is bigoted. And you're doing just that in your original post. But because you're targeting men, rather than black people, you suddenly become blind to what you know is bigoted logic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 09:07 PM
3

The relevant difference is that the whole history of Earth and humanity has treated gender and race differently. Nope, that's an irrelevant difference. I'm talking about your bigoted logic, not humanity as a whole's bigotry. If you cannot see that then you need to take a good hard look at yourself, and whether the "no bad tactics only bad targets" lenses you use might be, in themself, bigoted. Here's a hint: if you're advocating for treating people worse because you blame them for things other p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 09:00 PM
5

No, it's you trying to defend your bigotry. What is the relevant difference? Or do you believe that seeing an apple fall when dropped, and an anvil, and a feather, means you can't guess whether an orange will fall, because after all they're not the same?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 08:48 PM
5

You need to present some hurdles. But as it happens the two are utterly comparable because there are no relevant hurdles. You're being a bigot, but you think it's fine because men are an acceptable target for you, while black people aren't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 08:29 PM
5

If your logic about men is correct, then the racists' logic about black people - being the exact same logic - must also be correct. You don't get to have it both ways. So... do you support the quote in my post?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 01:57 AM
9

I'm not sure how you can fail to see the problem with your statement, but I've made it clearer for you anyway: "Violence against whites" is a problem because the vast majority of black-on-black violence is, in context, fairly predictable. Blacks are more likely to choose violent circumstances than whites. We can talk about why that's the case - for example, gang violence is linked to a lack of opportunity in the inner city, itself a symptom of racism - but violence against whites is qualitativel…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/19 01:31 AM
4

Feminism isn't a single thing, it's a vast collective of different ideologies that ultimately have only one thing in common: None of them believe women should be treated worse than men. Some feminism is about making women's position superior. Some feminisms believe women deserve more privilege because they're weaker than men, some believe women deserve more privilege because they're better than men. Some feminism is barely gender-related at all - because intersectionalism gets taken so far that …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/19 03:41 AM
13

I mean - which are boys more likely to look down on: having a penis that looks longer because it's fully intact, or staring at other boys dicks? No bully is going to tease someone on the basis of "I looked at your dick, and the other boys' dicks, and yours looks different"
/r/MensRights27/04/19 04:32 PM
1

The actual law is nothing like as restrictive as the article pretends.
/r/MensRights04/08/18 10:05 PM
21

Here's a deal - you can keep your right to mutilate children, but in exchange everyone else gets the right to torture you to death. You cool with that? Or do you expect the state to protect you when you mutilate children?
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:10 PM
1

Medical records, yeah, but for most legal purposes gender is more useful - looking at an ID card you're comparing it to the gender of the person in front of you, not their sex.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 08:39 PM
2

38 degrees petitions are always close to their target, because the target changes every time it's reached to be just slightly higher.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 02:28 AM
2

Are you including mastectomies for trans men in that? Because if it's just the genital surgery you're looking at, the main reason there are so few female->male is because of just how shit the results are.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 12:20 AM
1

Most things that drop sperm count levels that severely are very damaging to your health in the long term. Sperm are relatively susceptible to some forms of damage, but finding something that's sufficiently non-toxic to the rest of the body for constant use is challenging, especially if you want it to be able to wear off and have healthy sperm production resume.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 01:03 PM
1

If you go rubberless, you're always at risk of STD's? You're at risk of STDs if your partner has one. Which, if (s)he doesn't use condoms for casual sex (s)he is quite likely to. Doesn't that ultimately make birth control pills useless if we're considering 'safe sex' overall? Not entirely. There's the whole thing of fluid bonding in more developed relationships (the point at which you trust your partner with your health to a sufficient extent to stop condom use). And there's the fact that condom…
/r/MensRights19/06/15 12:17 PM
1

Jewish people are a religious group so no true race involved there. The holocaust was conducted based on bloodline, not religion; being a Christian was no defence if you had Jewish grandparents. Even if you feel that German Jews weren't racially distinct, it was definitely ethnic discrimination rather than religious discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 12:04 PM
6

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to do something, I would run even if that meant getting shot. You almost certainly wouldn't. It's easy to say "Oh, I'm so strongwilled I'd never be manipulated; I'd die instead of getting raped". It's far harder to actually do it.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 11:24 AM
1

Having watched all the way through, he does at least get one thing right: The whole "Women aren't naturally weaker" is complete bullshit. And one of the bits of dishonest feminism that annoys me thoroughly. Because women are naturally weaker. And trying to pretend that's a social construct is like pretending that Mount Everest is a human construct. It's not only not true, it's impossible
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:45 PM
1

And the other errors I've pointed out? Do those also not count because he's not discussing? Is he allowed to be just plain wrong because he agrees with you?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:16 PM
1

You consider insults an anathema to civilised discourse? The video you're praising insults the person whose video it is trying to refute. By your own standards, it's a failure.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:58 AM
2

Because they want people to be able to remove their pledge if they change their mind and/or because the feature would be used so rarely they can't be bothered including it and/or because overfunded projects=more revenue for them. The reason isn't certain, but they definitely don't.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:45 AM
1

And possibly an argument like that might have held some weight: although the tradition is one that feminists disapprove of, it's not necessarily a harmful one. Unfortunately, this group is happily praising a video that has nowhere near that level of intelligence behind it. That's what I have a problem with. Just because you agree with its overall conclusion, doesn't mean it's actually any good. The video is full of deliberate misrepresentation, and insultingly bad arguments.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:38 PM
1

But in the Double Dragon example it's not a case of "this is how it actually is". It's a case of "Hmmm, what do we want the story to be. I know, let's have a helpless woman get kidnapped, and two strapping men save her". As such it IS denying women's ability to help themselves, by creating a helpless woman in the fiction. It's not a true-life story, it's fiction. If you honestly can't tell the difference, that's rather depressing.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:28 PM
1

Someone started with a conclusion and then cherry picked evidence while deliberating misinterpreting it. And Mens Rights group ate it up, because it seems to be more important here to hate feminism than to actually possess logical thought.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:16 PM
-1

No. The whole "Woman gets kidnapped, man goes on quest and gets her back" thing almost never happens. The "Child gets kidnapped, mother goes on quest to get them back" is quite common. As for target market: Not as much as you probably think. The number of female gamers is massive. Of course, some sorts of games are offputting to them (partly due to the fact that female protagonists are so rare), but that just means that those games are failing to appeal to a part of their available market.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:09 PM
-2

It's THE MOST common story telling device in the history of plots. And that's Anita's point exactly. It's massively massively more common than the device of a female hero saving a male victim. Am I objectifying the victims of natural disasters when I send them money? No. But the media might objectify them by ignoring their attempts to help themselves, and only presenting the help others give them. Objectification is about treating others as objects, denying their ability to take actions towards …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:49 AM
-11

Wow, this video manages to go ridiculously wrong ridiculously early. It's either extraordinarily badly written or a deliberate parody of what feminists think mens rights activists are (ie. idiots). Assuming that one exception very late in one game completely removes the existence of a pattern is sheer stupidity. Treating it as though the claim was made that the games were made to keep women down (a claim that was never made in the video) is either stupidity or dishonesty. "A loved one to be help…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:36 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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