TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Liam_Banks Archive

View 1 posts and 16 comments by Liam_Banks on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

It's easy to demonize people who hold divergent viewpoints and paint them all with the same brush. In fact, the mainstream media provides a pretty powerful illustration of this phenomenon at work in its characterization of the "infamous men's rights movement." But at the end of the day we're all human beings with same flaws. As it seems you've found out, courtesy of Mr. Pornography_saves_li, the MRA crowd isn't immune to this tendency, either. However, I think most of us realize that everyone ou…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 07:44 PM
5

Sometimes an upvote just isn't enough.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 04:59 PM
2

Formatting messed up and cut off half of my comment. Will finish later.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:44 PM
2

First: It's difficult to respond to broad generalizations like this. In my own personal experience reading this subreddit, posts casting these sorts of aspersions on all women are very rare and usually not well-received, but I don't read every thread. Can you provide specific examples of comments that gave you this impression? Second: Because American society and culture congratulates itself regularly for steps taken to improve the situation for women, advance women's pecuniary interests, and el…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:33 PM
56

For whatever it is worth to you, I find your site to be - by far - the finest example of men's rights advocacy out of the entire movement. I have considered myself an MRA since 2000, and I've read every major site associated with men's rights, from Angry Harry, to Men's News Daily, to AVfM, and many others in between. Yours is consistently the most well-researched, the most professionally presented, the most adultlike in tone, and the most compelling in its arguments. It's been said so often in …
/r/MensRights30/05/14 02:36 PM
0

I'm not sure if you noticed, but a subreddit is not an avenue for journalistic activity. Perhaps you have reddit confused with the Wall Street Journal in your bookmarks? Besides that, unless you're trying to suggest that the OP made up the comments in his post, I don't really see the problem with "cherry-picking" here. It's a way to highlight the relevant content that decreases the demands on the reader's attention span. Would it be better if the post was a bunch of links to the comments section…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 02:40 PM
8

This is an excellent post. Material like this, based on solid evidence and closely connected to one of the main issues that men face today, are precisely the sort of content this subbreddit needs. Well done.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 07:39 PM
5

This is unseemly and makes this subreddit look petty, or at least that its priorities are seriously out of alignment. One of the major sources of credibility for the MRM is that it doesn't need grasp at straws, make implausible arguments, or exaggerate small problems in advancing its agenda. Feminism relies on faulty statistics and wildly overstated claims in order to make its case that women continue to be subjugated and oppressed. The MRM doesn't need to resort to this brand of speculative con…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 04:09 AM
1

I like the idea behind this post, but too much of it comes off as reaching for tenuous arguments or grasping at straws. If the standard for the article is pictures, you should stick to that. References to "stories you heard" just lets adversaries claim that the evidence of misandry in academia falls short of what you need to support your argument, since you weren't able to supply photos to support all of your examples. To be clear, this is not what I think, and that sort of counter-argument woul…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 02:22 PM
6

Intersectionality is basically just dual classing in identity-based claims of oppression. It compounds the underlying fallacy that you can identify someone, on an individual basis, as "privileged" or "oppressed" based on their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their sex, or their sexuality. The term for this way of thinking - making assumptions about an otherwise unknown individual based on generalizations arising from a group or groups they belong to - is stereotyping. That thing that SJWs…
/r/MensRights20/09/13 02:22 PM
3

Excellent comment. I had long been curious about the physiological differences between those cancers, and whether they had a relationship to public attitudes about them and approaches to treatment. Your explanation was informative and lucid. Thank you for that. So given what you've said, in most cases, the cancer doesn't metastasize or otherwise pose health risks until other morbidity factors are already farther along, like heart attack, Alzheimer's, etc. That still leaves some less-common cases…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:00 PM
1

Alright, I wanted to let you off easily the last time since you were embarrassing yourself, but since you insist on doing this: What I am about to say is fully accurate and is court-level understanding. No, the First Amendment does not have an immensely strict standard for determining hate speech. There is no such thing as hate speech within the confines of the First Amendment. Laws against hate speech would be content-based discrimination or viewpoint-based regulation, which trigger and fail st…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:58 PM
0

It is unfortunate that you rely on the First Amendment in support of your position in a discussion about control of speech by a private entity. The First Amendment has no application to what speech Facebook does or does not allow on its private website, and does not help you to advance your position. Neither does your escalating crescendo of emphatic, indignant rhetoric, but at least that helps savvy readers recognize the lack of substance you have to offer. From there, the rest of your post cen…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 09:43 PM
6

Facebook does not allow its users "to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition." Stating "I hate men" is an attack. Saying "girls are better than boys" is an attack. Saying "men are the devil and need to be purged" is most definitely an attack. Your response, that in your subjective view, making light of violence against women is somehow a worse attack, such that Facebook should apply its policy to t…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:54 PM
6

I agree that the best outcome is absolute free speech, to allow the marketplace of ideas to deliver the ultimate verdict on the messages of feminism, sexism, MRAs, and equality. But we've already seen that that's not going to happen. Facebook has decided that it's going to censor speech on its service. So now the remaining question is selectively-enforced censorship for the benefit of specially-protected groups, or evenly-enforced censorship. Evenly-enforced censorship is the second-best outcome…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 06:26 PM
14

Someone should pursue a Freedom of Information Act request and find out who in the DOE and DOJ is pushing these initiatives at the policy level. There is currently no disincentive for a federal official, hidden behind layers of bureaucracy, from coming up witn the most insane Orwellian nonsense they can think of and deploy it in service of a trendy political agenda. FIRE takes it to U.S. District Court and, in the best case scenario, obtains an injunction against application of the policy as fac…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 06:16 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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