TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LtLabcoat Archive

View 0 posts and 67 comments by LtLabcoat 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)
0

But transphobic also means rejecting the concept of "gender identity" at an intellectual level. Hold on, it means more than that. "Transphobic" doesn't just mean disagreeing with people who'd rather change gender than to break their previous gender's stereotype*, it also means disagreeing that changing gender should be a solution for gender dysphoria. The mental disorder. And like many mental disorders, it does not care about what the victim philosophically supports - it WILL make them feel sign…
/r/MensRights05/06/22 11:34 AM
3

Man, talk about a lame episode. Not because of the social politics or anything, it was just a lame episode. The jokes weren't good and the story didn't go anywhere in particular. ...Actually, for an episode clearly trying to pass as social commentary, it was exceptionally toothless. As in, it could be described as "Mocking anything to do with the issue, but only in superficial ways and with no actual message or aim". I'd guess it's just another 'controversy for the sake of controversy' thing.
/r/MensRights25/03/19 02:13 PM
1

I believe people that have been charged and found guilty of false accusation are not anonymous. It's just... rare.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 12:40 AM
3

Cosby may of won in court For those not keeping track of the trial: Cosby didn't win in court. The retrial (after jurors couldn't decide) will be in April.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 01:04 PM
3

It'd be nice in theory, but in practice, there's just no way to enforce it. The moment the government says "We're going to punish you for telling people you were raped by [name]", there'll be a national outrage. Maybe in ye olden days before internet you could, by restricting what newspapers and TV could say and letting locals say whatever they want, but with the internet that's not an option either.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 01:03 PM
1

The latter, obviously.
/r/MensRights02/04/17 02:03 AM
1

Nobody in this thread said he is.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 04:22 PM
36

Yes, and like with any politician, the incentives for pandering and remaining on course are too great.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 11:48 AM
45

Trump supporters aren't the problem, people who only read topics by their headlines are the problem.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 11:45 AM
2

I lived in the UK, and I tried. Responses varied between "Mmm, maybe some other time" and "It's not a big deal, we've got bigger issues to focus on". Feminists didn't put the law into place, but they sure as hell are making it look like there aren't major issues against men. Hell, I'd have bet money on that you yourself, after hearing about this law, weren't thinking about doing anything about it. Not even talk about it with your friends, let alone campaign against it. The only reason I wouldn't…
/r/MensRights24/02/17 07:56 PM
5

The people in this sub need to get over their fear of feminists and realize that they're fighting for the same things. Yeah, that's the part people here would disagree with. Not all feminists, of course, but... Well let me give you an example: The United Kingdom has a law saying that a woman can't be charged with rape. It's not an obscure law, and it's not an archaic law from many years ago that doesn't see practice today. A woman genuinely can't be charged with more than sexual assault (well, I…
/r/MensRights24/02/17 06:15 PM
1

That means women registering for the draft (in the US), for example. You're the first one I've met that would rather women in the draft than men out of it.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 05:43 PM
1

The feminists I know would agree with the sentiment in this post. Without getting into what the majority of feminists actually agree with: the people in this sub are here because the feminists they know would not. Or, at least, wouldn't care to make a deal out of it.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 05:38 PM
1

This movement would have so much more support if it wasn't constantly tainted with general anger and bitterness I agree. Like, I know a lot of people here don't believe that most feminist groups are really as looking-out-for-the-men-too as they claim they are, but there really are too many people bringing their opinions on feminism up in topics that have nothing to do with feminism, and speaking as if everyone's already convinced feminists are the devil instead of demonstrating groups that have …
/r/MensRights24/02/17 05:33 PM
4

Is /r/SubredditDrama better now? I remember at least a year ago it was absolutely full of the same echo-chamber based demographic-insulting that the subs the other guy mentioned. Like, every time the topic of Men's Rights came up, the thread would inevitably get featured on /r/subredditdramadrama from people taking the opportunity to dogpile on anyone who supports the Men's Rights Movement.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 12:38 PM
7

/r/TumblrInAction is the most depressing in this regard. Not because it's the worst - out of all of them, it's probably still the most light-hearted and non-judgemental of them - but because it didn't use to have that problem to begin with. There was always a theme that if you tried using the people featured there as representing democrats or feminists or activists, or just representing anyone but themselves, you'd be called an idiot. But over time, that went away, and it became just another bul…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 12:31 PM
0

I agree with this. Normally these insult retorts have a deeper meaning to them, like his previous "cuntfusing" Tweet, but this one is just an insult. Not a refutation, not a clever word play, just an insult.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/17 12:24 PM
1

OP: The personal is political, and emasculation seems to be a goal of liberal feminism. The person in question: “I will really do this. I feel that if he does actually build any of the wall, me removing my penis publicly will bring worldwide attention to the injustice being inflicted against the Mexican people.” OP, you are so full of crap.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:46 PM
0

A great number of politicians might have gotten elected because they promised more safety for their voters. A great number of politicians got elected by promising more actual safety for their voters. Pretty much nobody got elected by promising people that they can feel like they're safer. You might feel unsafe in a foreign country as a tourist, even if they tell you that the local police is doing their job. It might not be rational from you, but you will probably avoid visiting that country agai…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 01:18 AM
3

I don't even think this is a government-based economical decision here. I think this law is coming from the people, and their dislike of socialism (I mean 'the well-off support the needy' socialism, not communism). Ordinary people are just too much against upping their own taxes to such a degree that all children get government welfare, and would much rather that sex be a lottery game where only certain people get friggin' massive wage cuts and everyone else gets by fine. And as long as it can b…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:44 PM
10

Reason #2: Funds Correct the Record: Online bullies act as coordinated downvoting and online harassment campaign, often focusing on spaces for men's issues and political speech preferred by men, including conservative speech. https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4zchnk/if_you_search_rpolitics_for_correct_the_record/ Your source doesn't say that. In fact, I haven't seen evidence of a harassment campaign or that it does anything beyond trying to make Clinton look good. The other four points…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:34 PM
1

Side effects are a burden. They're not a major burden, but I don't think the author's complaint was a major complaint either.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 07:19 PM
2

She got divorced to do this and has sunk thousands of dollars into it - money that her own family will never see. Oh no! She's spending her own money on charity! How horrible! She neglected her husband and her own children by her own admission. Oh...no? I mean, she didn't actually. People are quoting that one "Sometimes I cared more about helping the asylum seekers than my own family" line, She's had strange men living with her for 8 months straight and now she's "in love" with one of them. Oh c…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:06 PM
8

Why are people looking at anything else? In case Vasalgel doesn't work out.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:23 PM
3

If there was a significant financial incentive involved too ... If I had to guess, they signed a waiver anyway, so it's a moot point. You don't know that for sure though, do you? Well no. I just know that hiring people without checking that they're fine with a child first would be absolutely moronically stupid, and that contraceptive researchers in the past haven't been systematically sued after every experiment that had a less than 100% prevention rate. And if I had to guess, those two things a…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:22 PM
9

TL;DR: the author is angry that a full 6% of patients for a male contraceptive experiencing serious side-effects meant it had to be stopped, since the female contraceptive also has side-effects at a rate of... ...well they don't actually have any statistics showing it at a high rate, but they guess it's also pretty high and that we need this dangerous new contraceptive to be pushed out anyway to counter it. (For those wondering, here's the actual rate for side-effects with the pill. Headaches an…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:15 PM
13

I can't believe this is in a supposedly mainstream, broadsheet newspaper Welcome to the wonderful world of write-in Opinion Pieces. They're literally just blog posts hosted by the news site. They were always garbage, but with news orgs not caring about number of pages or cost of ink anymore like traditional newspapers did, they can put in as many as they want! I think the worst part is that whenever someone criticises them, they get shut down with "Oh, it's just an opinion piece, it's not the ne…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:07 PM
4

If I had to make a guess, the people signing up for an experimental contraceptive knew it would potentially fail. I very much doubt any couple signed up if they weren't alright with having a baby.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:02 PM
4

If I had to make a guess, they got pregnant.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:58 PM
1

It's regressive in the same way that practically everywhere is when it comes to prisons. Most people believe criminals should be locked away for a loooong time, believe the justice system should operate on an eye-for-an-eye retribution principle, and think criminological statistics don't matter and that making up 'appropriate sentences' is perfectly sensible. Say what you will about politics and religion, but criminal punishments are the one area where everyone thinks they're an expert on withou…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:51 PM
1

I don't agree that it should be a permanent mark - it sounds like you're arguing more out of a sense of retribution than for any practical reasons - but it's certainly still true that giving people the idea that they can commit serious crimes but still be a good person is probably going to make people think the crime they're thinking about isn't so bad either.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:35 PM
2

Isn't Wales, where she lives, on a different land mass than France where she volunteers? Yes, the UK is an island. But it's still on the same continent. Wales is most definitely a part of Europe. Plus, it's less than 6 hours to get from South Wales to France via car. If something comes up, it's not hard to get back. especially if the husband works and is unable to care forthe kids during work hours when the wife is suppossed to be home That is literally the worst reason I have ever heard for say…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:25 PM
8

Are there no women and children in the camp? No, the Calais camp consisted entirely of people that have travelled the full length of the continent and want to get into the UK. The usual strategy is to send the strongest of the family - the young adult male, if there is one - to go and get registered as a refugee in a rich and opportunistic (or at least, what the Middle East hears of as rich and opportunistic) country while the rest of the family register in the closest one they have, then get re…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:09 PM
3

Can you say with any confidence that the husband was doing anything that could be construed as putting strain on the marriage? What I can say is that healthy marriages don't suddenly end because one person wants to spend more time doing charity work now and again (and I do mean 'now and again', I don't know where people got the impression this is a full-time thing). I'm not saying that it must mean her husband's also partly responsible, but there's definitely way more than just this.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:02 PM
3

...Okay, which part's confusing you: that you missed that the article says she only goes once or twice a month, or that she's divorced and would only have shared custody of the kids? Because there's simply no way her trips are interfering with her parenting. Not being on the same continent I cannot believe how badly you messed up your geography.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 04:57 PM
6

I'm not looking for equality. I am very happy with traditional gender roles. :) I think you're in the wrong sub.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:48 PM
5

Three reasons why: Firstly, it's got the same issue with "Men should make up 50% of people in all professions and 50% of primary protagonists in stories". It's true that that's a theoretical ideal, but because for each individual or story it's an all-or-nothing thing (as in, a primary protagonist can't be half-male, and the same for garbage collectors and CEOs, the only way to get 50% is if some stories are forced to have female primary protagonists and some people forced to change jobs), there'…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:47 PM
3

However, if you choose to have children and then not just put other people above them but to tell the world, including your kids that they do not come top of your list. That part's a fine objection. It's not something I'd personally disagree with (maybe if she didn't say she's only sometimes done that I might object more), but it's certainly still controversial either way. But that's a minority of the complaints here, and the others are far more ridiculous. If this were a man abandoning his wife…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:37 PM
1

Defend it from who? The US has literally never been invaded. Whenever the draft was invoked, it was always to attack other countries.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:24 PM
1

That's pretty extreme, considering at the moment men have the option to not sign up for the draft, yet can still vote. Not signing up does have consequences, but losing the right to vote is reserved exclusively for criminals and drug users.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:28 PM
1

from my experience, feminists have been against including women into the draft. Really? I know feminists like to completely avoid talking about the draft, but I haven't actually met anyone myself (as in, without someone else on the internet pointing out stupid comments) that's against making it equal or removing it entirely when the topic comes up.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:17 PM
15

Hold on, hold on... ...are people in this thread really complaining that two people - who, as the article states, already had strains in their marriage - getting divorced because of a major disagreement about working in an immigrant camp is an inherently bad thing? What the hell, guys? I don't want to current year this, but we're well past the point where getting divorced is something shameful that needs to be avoided at all costs! They can get divorced if they goddam want to, whether the reason…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:32 AM
-1

and refusing to help raise her kids ????? That's not anywhere in the article.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:31 AM
9

Well my first thought is: what the heck are you talking about? I love Phineas And Ferb, it's an excellent cartoon, but I have absolutely no idea how it's related to men's rights whatsoever!
/r/MensRights17/10/16 09:31 AM
2

I think, if we can't decide what it's satirising, then it's safe to say that it's not actually satirising anything (or if it is, it's doing a really bad job of it). I'm pretty sure it's just the writers going "Haha, this 'dicks out for Harambe' thing is funny, we should do something like that" and tied it into the whole MRM stuff because they wanted a running story. I mean, the last season of South Park was great, but it's worth remembering that South Park usually isn't just satire. The writers …
/r/MensRights15/10/16 08:03 PM
2

I agree with all of that, but at the same time, I do think we should be giving him (and Colby, for that matter, and Bill too) the benefit of the doubt here. At least, for as long as there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. There may be a lot of accusations, but he also has a lot of critics, so there's no reason to think "The odds of all the accusations being made up is too low to give him the benefit of the doubt". But I do agree that this singular video does nothing to disprove the accusations. F…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 07:57 PM
1

Politifact's 80-90% was debunked because they lump in grants with overhead AKA "administrative" costs and travel fees. Do you have a source on this? Nice Tu Quoque with Trump, which doesn't tell us anything about Clinton I don't like Clinton. I think she's the worst Democrat candidate in a long time, by a large margin. But for as long as this is a Clinton-vs-Trump vote, I'll still judge both of them relative to each other. who accepted much more than SuperPAC donations. Did she accept them, or d…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 02:05 PM
1

illegally rigging the DNC Evidence? a window into the DOJ I don't know what this is referring to. curating and deleting 2000 classified emails under subpoena Evidence? spending less than 10% of her multi million dollar charity Debunked. It's actually 80-90%. pay for play with Huma, Band, doners, Uranium One, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran Not criminal. Very questionable, but not criminal. And Trump also participated in that pay-for-play scheme. Haiti "Goldrush" Evidence? Actually, I'll spoil this one…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 12:10 PM
1

Do you have any evidence saying otherwise, or are you just going "I don't want it to be true, so I'm going to say it's not"?
/r/MensRights15/10/16 11:37 AM
-2

No it's him saying "something is suspicious. It should be INVESTIGATED. For more that 13 seconds anyway..." What, you think the police are just going to the crime scenes, looking at the body, and going "Yup, that's a suicide alright. Pack it in boys, nothing else to see here"? The police do investigate these kind of things, and so far they've found nothing incriminating. That doesn't mean they didn't search, it just means they didn't find anything. And what about when the fbi basically said "yea…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 03:11 PM
-4

That's not a counterargument, that's just repeating the same "She's suspicious, so she must be guilty" mantra but more seriously this time.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 12:37 PM
1

Ah, heh. I guess I got a bit carried away there. No, it's not really. I mean, it would be if you think she should be arrested for that kind of stuff. But otherwise, no, not really.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 12:21 PM
1

So... are you complaining about the science behind it because it's saying some types of marriages are more stable than others, the scientists behind the study for doing the study, or The Telegraph for reporting on the study? And what the heck does "telling men how to live" have to do with /r/mensrights? "The right to not be told what to do" is not an actual right.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:35 AM
2

...what's this got to do with /r/mensrights?
/r/MensRights14/10/16 08:59 AM
-12

Oh boy, time for another wonderful game of "Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to my opinions"! Let's spin the wheel of excuses and see what we get this time! *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* And today's winner is... "Just because the accused has a lot of enemies doesn't mean we should take the possibility they were framed seriously"! Ah, an old classic! Alright everyone, until next time, just remember: human rights don't matter if you d…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 08:54 AM
12

This has nothing to do with /r/mensrights. This is just an excuse to talk more about politics and presidential candidates, and saying something like "Is she getting special treatment because of her gender" is an appallingly transparent attempt to try tie it to this sub. Cop on, man, keep the unrelated political discussions to the subs that are actually about politics.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 03:46 PM
1

But Colbert was talking about the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack. If it was about the number of terrorists, it'd be much more than just 1.5 swimming pools of Skittles. Or... possibly less. I don't know how many plans get foiled.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 12:03 AM
1

The two party system in action.
/r/MensRights01/10/16 11:56 PM
6

Trump: for free speech WHAT? WHAT?! You think the guy who started his campaign by saying anyone who says they believe in Allah should be banned from entry is in favour of free speech? You think the guy who says he wants harsher libel laws and the ability to sue people for saying something misleading is in favour of free speech? You think the guy who said he was in favour of boycotting his own Starbucks for not putting "Merry Christmas" on his coffee cup is in favour of free speech? Have I actual…
/r/MensRights01/10/16 11:43 PM
10

Every time this topic gets brought up, I feel whoever did should really point out what their preferred alternative is. People naturally assume that, if someone says "One parent shouldn't have to pay if they don't want to", they're advocating for a child to go starving instead. (Also, those replies are ridiculous! Not in the arguments they use, but so few of them are civil and don't instantly resort to insults!)
/r/MensRights19/09/16 09:13 AM
2

What happened at Harvard? I think I'm out of the loop.
/r/MensRights20/08/16 01:49 PM
4

If everyone does have "some bedtime story", as you put it, then why are you in favour of executing them all? If they all have a story that could show they might be innocent, surely the logical conclusion to that would be not executing any of them.
/r/MensRights20/08/16 01:35 PM
3

I dunno, I'm quite fond of urinals. Edit: I don't mean in the ladies' room.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 09:00 PM
1

You complain and bitch that America is the world police Rather the opposite. I'm complaining that America is not being the world police, they just spend frivolous amounts of money on military and not put it to good use at all. All the wars they've been in recently are so horribly handled that they might as well not have bothered in the first place. If they were actually ending conflicts, I'd have much more respect for how much they spend. Which is to say, I'd have respect for how much they spend…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:49 PM
0

Yes, it is. Now. Long after Russia invaded. But at the time, the US did squat-all defending.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:54 PM
0

Also, you may not be facing invasion, but that doesn't stop you from sending troops to help fight Russian expansion in eastern Europe. I can't help but notice that America is doing absolutely nothing about that. Can we focus on the stuff the American military does that aren't imaginary?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 01:31 PM
0

And btw, can you tell me why Canada doesn't pay as much as the u.s for defense? I'll tell you why. Because the u.s is also defending your ass too. You mean defending them from all the wars Canada never gets in? Because last time I checked, nobody's tried to invade Canada in a long, long time. Hell, why would you think "Our neighbour has giant guns and could easily take over our country" would be a good thing to Canadians?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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