KirudanBoryoku Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
3	Woman actually gets depressed because r/r/mensrights has subscribers, and questions how mens "rights" can be taken seriously I'll give you I was a tad hasty if this is what you meant. But the comment I replied to had none of the nuance or reason. It was literally just a senseless dig, so I stand by it.	/r/MensRights	13/07/19 02:31 AM
6	Woman actually gets depressed because r/r/mensrights has subscribers, and questions how mens "rights" can be taken seriously Please. Explain how I'm projecting what exactly	/r/MensRights	13/07/19 02:20 AM
5	Woman actually gets depressed because r/r/mensrights has subscribers, and questions how mens "rights" can be taken seriously The dude voided his chance of getting a respectful response by being disrespectful in his comment. Sure mine is more crass but is also an actual constructive dig at him. If he doesn't change he'll become what he's decrying etc. His comment was just a cheap dig at someone for being a woman.	/r/MensRights	13/07/19 02:10 AM
10	Woman actually gets depressed because r/r/mensrights has subscribers, and questions how mens "rights" can be taken seriously You're a dick. I get we're in a men's rights sub but by acting like all women are heartless you're being as bad as who this post is calling shitty.	/r/MensRights	13/07/19 01:58 AM
0	How is this okay??? You're completely right. One must accept criticism and I agree whole-heartedly however I feel I may not be properly articulating what I mean to say. That being said overly aggressive and slightly aggressive aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as I don't believe the situation necessarily warranted any aggression therefore anything is overaggressive. I don't really feel attacked just not really up for a lot of conversation or whatever but I don't know.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 08:04 PM
-2	How is this okay??? Not necessarily. I would consider mockery to be a slight aggression. It's hardly a threat but yeah I'd consider it mean spirited at the least. I'm clearly not doing wonders with my words today so I'm gonna go ahead and call this quits here.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 07:41 PM
1	How is this okay??? Okay. Most intents and purposes then. Fair criticism. But the point stands, phobia works for hatred. Aversion can work in lieu of hatred. However not exclusively. Yes.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 07:38 PM
-13	How is this okay??? Evidently. But you aren't doing anything useful in doing so. My criticism is legitimate. And I don't think I was being pedantic. I see where you're coming from but I disagree that that's particularly overscrupulous. You're being unnecessarily aggressive over me pointing out at issue with something. You could have achieved something far more potent more quickly by simply stating :"You know you're being a bit pedantic there" or some other such phrase.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 06:52 PM
-10	How is this okay??? Just the one issue I hold with a two line analogy. There aren't a whole lot of issues you can pick out of something that short, that being said it frankly just doesn't work as a proper analogy as it's not really analogous. The fact that one contains a slur and the other doesn't is a very distinct difference considering the content is so short. Perhaps I did overblow it calling it terrible, however I believe I do have a valid point in at least saying it's a poor equivalency.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 06:26 PM
-19	How is this okay??? That's a terrible analogy. Men are not referred to by slur. It would have been a lot more suitable example had you simply said "black people". It's still unpleasant but much more relevant to the post.	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 05:07 PM
-2	How is this okay??? No. A phobia is a fear of and/or aversion to aversion for all intents and purposes is hatred. Hence why homophobia is used to refer to hatred of homosexual people and the likes, it's rarely used to indicate fear of them. Both terms are fully viable	/r/MensRights	04/10/17 05:06 PM