TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MadCervantes Archive

View 0 posts and 48 comments by MadCervantes 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)
-1

I graduated with a degree in biochemistry, not in political science. I don't know what a hallmark of materialist understanding of leftism is, or what would even count as ontological grounding, or what it has to do with this discussion at all. I imagine most people here don't understand it either. You're going to have to dumb it down if you want to have good conversations with people, or go to a sub dedicated to politics or something, where people are familiar with those terms and know what it me…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 05:23 AM
1

I don't agree with inherent meaning because I think that meaning is inherently subjective (or intersubjective), but I can agree to what they probably meant to say, which is that women having certain traits (an attractive body) are automatically valued for having that body, and the trait that makes them attractive is an inherent one to their existence as an embdied person. Meanwhile men might be physically attractive, but most things that make men attractive to women are things that men must do, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 05:12 AM
1

I mean, unconditionally valuing someone or something isn't healthy either. The trick is having healthy conditions and boundaries, not to have none. That's... a good point. I'm not sure how to integrate it but it covers an aspect about this stuff that has bothered me. I need to think on this some. Gonna be perfectly honest, I graduated from the pure sciences (biochem degree), not political sciences, so I admit I have almost no idea what any of that means haha. I'll define some of those terms then…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 04:44 AM
0

I mean... the original statement is pretty simple. Their difficulty in following it isn't really up to my structure, it's due to their not understanding the "reason" why a statement is made. they don't get why it's made because it doesn't align with their frame of reference. I didn't mention the existence of the sexual marketplace to uphold a position on male or women's privilege in competition with one another. Rather I brought it up to challenge the lack of market analysis in discussing gender…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 04:09 AM
0

Question begging "inherent meaning" is foolish and a logical fallacy that completely misses how language actually works. This does not require a master degree in linguistics and political sciences. If you don't understand a part of this you are free to ask for questions or clarifications. I have no clue what part of this have difficulty with. There's no shame in not understanding but it isn't my job to to read your mind either. What is unclear?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 04:01 AM
1

I've got a simple request: tell me 3 thinkers, activists, writers, politicians, or movement leaders etc that are important to you in the subject of politics, one in the 19th, one in the 20th, and one in the 21st. Shouldn't be hard right? And it's a pretty simple way to establish trust. If I know what your thinking is, what your worldview is, what your priorities are, then we can find common ground. But if you refuse to reveal your starting pointing it demonstrates that you aren't willing to enga…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 02:28 AM
0

I've answered elsewhere: https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/mya77m/what_are_some_examples_of_female_privilege_being/gvw88zy/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/21 02:19 AM
0

You're still missing the underlying issue because you're engaged reactively to what you perceive as opposition. The point I made about how gender functions as a market is in service of a criticism of the person's left leaning bona fides. You'd get that if you actually followed the argument from its central point instead of trying to pass the Puck back down the air hockey table.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 05:11 AM
2

I'd like to see (especially as someone coming from a leftist perspective) an exploration of how our current problems with the dating scene are an example of a market failure and how we can address that market failure. Declaring victimhood does nothing to address the systemic issues that create dysfunctional het dating relations. Ita like discussing race issues. Wanting to fix race without examining the structures that undergird our fraught race relations is not useful. The systemic aspect is nec…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 04:16 AM
0

That also completely elides my point. You're throwing darts at a board. Reactive arguments rather than engaging in critical thinking.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 04:12 AM
0

"feminism" doesn't stand for anything apart from how you choose to use it. It's a word. Maps are not territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 03:04 AM
0

My issue with trying to angle a left wing sub in terms of being "against feminism" is that it's a reification fallacy and doesn't seem to grok that "isms" aren't real and don't have a concrete reality apart from intended meaning. There are a plurality of competing uses of the terms and there's absolutely no reason to surrender the term without a good reason. It's the same problem with when people get into debating socialism or "real anarchism". Words are not things. The map is not the territory.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 03:01 AM
1

I'm not saying anything about the mods "controlling how people vote". My point is that the pattern of down voting isn't based on tone its based on the position. Question begging "inherent meaning" is foolish and a logical fallacy that completely misses how language actually works.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 02:55 AM
-2

I would believe the honestly of your tone policing more if I didn't see dissenting opinions worded much more politely than mine get down voted nearly as much. This place has an extreme level of echo chamber built in and that doesn't make me feel any less skeptical about y'all as a psyops. Why does the rules talking about the definition of leftwing not include any specifics historical thinkers or movements under its definitions of values? It's vague to the point is strains my credulity
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 12:39 AM
-3

One reason I'm perhaps a touch abrasive is because I'm pretty sure this sub is a psyop and the mods are not presenting in good faith. I haven't seen any reasonable familiarity with actual leftist thought so far. The mission statement may make this place a pretty big tent but even that doesn't seem to be present. Frankly it sounds a lot more like a core group of mra people who have no meaningful interaction with politics outside of their specific interest, trying to attract recruits to their caus…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/04/21 12:31 AM
0

It ain't a fucking race bud. Oppression Olympics nonsense is pointless. Don't play that game.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 11:49 PM
-2

Still not really addressing the lack of basic familiarity with political treatments of gender as marketplace.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 11:46 PM
-1

Tone policing is pretty weak. It has no objective criteria and easily used as a bad faith tool. Versa me on what exactly? My tone not being to your liking isn't indicative of anything about how good faith my argument is. If anything it serves as a positive indicator that I'm not bullshitting you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 11:46 PM
-1

It's uncivil to say that someone is arguing in bad faith and using strawman fallacies? Pointing out fallacies is against this subs rules?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 09:47 PM
-3

Saying that someone's rhetoric is shit isn't an insult. It's an evaluation of their argument. Taking that personally demonstrates an over identification with your position. As I said, bad rhetoric.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 09:46 PM
-4

Swing and a miss bud. You totally did not understand the criticism I made. Read some Wittgenstein and linguistics post frege please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 09:44 PM
0

Thanks you. Someone else here gets it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 08:30 PM
0

Yes and both of these things suck no?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 08:26 PM
3

It reveals the way in which sexism hurts both men and women. Sexism is bad precisely because it harms those who perceive themselves to be benefiting from it. That's the point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 08:26 PM
-7

Except it isn't "inherently valued". It's a conditional form of value which isn't healthy. The dating world isn't healthy because of how it reduces humans to commodities. For a sub that calls its self leftist no one here seems very familiar with basic criticisms of social forms being defined by markets. Commodity fetishism y'all.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 08:23 PM
-3

Your first example feels like a strawman. Yes people do talk about how examples of burdens that fall unfairly on men are often contextualized with additional framing on how it is not a completely one way street but that isn't the same thing as saying "actually it's women who are discriminated against". That's a vast oversimplification of what the argument is. The argument is in fact on how oppression is a bad system not just for those who are directly hurt by it but also those who benefit from i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 08:19 PM
2

Did I stutter?! 😳
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 06:23 AM
6

You should be hitting people regardless of gender...if you don't respect someone that doesn't mean you should hit them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/04/21 05:18 AM
-4

You're believing in spooks bud.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 05:51 PM
-1

Look up kyriarchy and you'll see you are wrong. Or remain ignorant and don't read. No skin off my nose.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 03:46 PM
7

Pussy pass denied has nothing to do with gender equality and saying it is is such wack cope.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 05:38 AM
-7

Intersecrionality actually means the opposite. It means recognizing that just because someone is a man they can also be poor or black or disabled or non neurotypical or something else. Perhaps a more useful framing of it for you would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 04:24 AM
-6

I disagree. Discrimination is good. To discriminate means "to pass judgement between two things". A dog and a wolf are not the same and they should not be treated the same. A gun and a dildo are not the same and should not be treated the same. A 30 lb sack of potatoes and a pile of kittens are not the same either. The problem with making it illegal for women to drive is that this discrimination is based on a falsehood. A pack of potatoes and a pile of kittens are not the same. But it would be si…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 04:22 AM
2

First of all yes, in fact BLM have been some of theost ardent supporters of white victims of police violence: https://www.nola.com/opinions/article_4f6138fe-ea8c-551b-9e60-9e99feacacf2.html But second even if this wasn't the case it wouldn't matter. If I say "my house is on fire" that doesn't mean "I hope your house burns". If someone identifies a problem and your first reaction is "yeah well I've got problems too you know!" you've got your head so far up your own ass it's a surprise you aren't …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 04:18 AM
-1

"save the rain forest" doesn't mean "fuck all other forests" "my house is on fire" doesn't mean "I hope your house burns down"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/04/21 03:20 AM
2

All lives matter as a phrase is not "race blind".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/21 04:46 AM
-7

Housing first initiatives have really high success rates. I wouldn't worry about it floundering.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/21 04:41 AM
1

Yeah seriously. It seems to me that he is having trouble because he's allowing himself to be made into a doormat. Not saying he deserves any of that crap or that he even has much he can do about it (clinical depression becomes a vicious cycle afterall) but I think that more pertinent issue for this guy is that he seems reticent to take the opportunities that are available to him, out of some kind false humility.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 10:21 PM
2

I came here to say that. Understand "better" requires some concept of "good, better, best" which requires implicitly a value system.
/r/seduction04/07/12 01:46 AM
0

My point isn't just that it's been observed before, but rather that the level at which the observation is taken is always very surface level.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 03:20 PM
-4

The Mensrights sub makes me sad when it devolves into this kind of thing. This is a tired argument, and it's been addressed plenty of times. If there was to be a deeper discussion on this issue it would require people taking the time to examine their presuppositions in a keen and articulated way. Unfortunately that's not going to happen and instead we're just going to recycle memes. And I'll thank you for the downvotes ahead of time.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 01:56 AM
2

Yah, for sure we shouldn't get complacent. Sadly enough, I just think there are so many stories of this kind already that we know to be true, we have little excuse to get complacent.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 07:45 PM
1

True true
/r/MensRights15/09/11 07:44 PM
3

Yeah I agree. Doesn't mean we should accept it at face value. The people most critical of our evidence should be ourselves. We have to be air tight.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 06:13 AM
10

What odds? Do you have some statistics to pull out from somewhere about what the odds actually are? Look, I'm not saying it is, or is not happening. I'm saying I would approach this story with caution, and I wouldn't justify ignoring the problems with the evidence just because it supports my opinion. Which is does. I'm subscribed to men's rights for a reason. I agree with the cause, but blindly chasing stories like this just makes the cause look stupid. And what the fuck are you talking about "y…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:56 AM
4

And this is why I don't go to 4chan.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:49 AM
-2

I find that kind of fucked up in a weird kind of way. Does anyone else find posting a reaction picture to a tragic story like this to be kind of... well demeaning to the truth of the story? It's like it's just reducing human emotion to a meme.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:48 AM
45

Thats bad logic. A lot of people will back up their faulty positions by saying "well it may not be true that THIS public school is banning Christianity but DAMN in this country it's true SOMEWHERE". Don't accept bad evidence just because it fits your point of view. You do a disservice to the cause.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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