TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Mike_Hauncheaux Archive

View 0 posts and 16 comments by Mike_Hauncheaux 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

The violence is necessary for the rapist to overcome the physical expression of the victim not consenting. So it's more about lack of consent than violence. If it's without consent, regardless of violence, it is rape.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 09:50 PM
1

So why shouldn't they both have been expelled?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 09:37 PM
3

With her looks, she'd be a top tier hooker, so depending on your marketplace, you'd be looking at $500 to $1500 for a hummer. So between 33,334 and 100,000 BJs on this simple math. If a pimp is involved, she'd need to triple or quadruple that number to take home $50 million.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 09:24 PM
1

All hail the Queen of Women of Walmart!
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 09:12 PM
2

Did? Still is.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 08:59 PM
5

It does when you feed it Twinkies.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 08:43 PM
11

Or becomes even stronger.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 08:32 PM
4

I don't know if this is TMI or an LPT.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 08:29 PM
1

You're not trying to figure out my position. You're trying to convince me of yours. So stop with the pious altruism. If you were honestly trying to figure out my position, you wouldn't have grossly misrepresented it as you did in your last post. And the "my secret thoughts" defense doesn't work when you've typed said thoughts into the internet.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:03 PM
1

I've not said they're ignorant. You have, though. I've not and never said it's the only way the message (writ generally) can be expressed. And I didn't say repetition is for the sake of acceptance. It said it was for the sake of desensitizing them from their abnormal emotional reaction to that particular use of that particular rhetorical device. Now you're just sewing together strawmen at this point. I've said what I've specifically said and nothing more. How can you reasonably expect me to main…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 05:38 AM
0

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. If the speaker believes the message is so bound up with the rhetorical device that re-drafting it without the device would not result in the same message, then when the speaker is asked to re-draft the message - which is what you are asking them to do - that is the kind of self-censorship that is rightfully rejected. You're way too wrapped up in the concept of not provoking one side's outrage machine. The outrage machine is a farce. It's…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 04:54 AM
1

Whether someone is competent to express their message another way is irrelevant to whether having to do so in this instance is wrongfully imposed self-censorship.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:55 AM
0

You're wrong. If someone has to remove an otherwise acceptable literary device from their message because certain people in the audience would have an irrational reaction, that's wrongfully imposed self-censorship. How you express is not separate from what you express.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:28 AM
0

No. Not in the long term, if it comes at the cost of self-censorship to cater to their abnormal emotional reactivity. The message should just be repeated as is till those folks are desensitized to what they use to (irrationally) find offensive.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:16 AM
-1

Maybe, but maybe not. How can you predict something like that?
/r/MensRights19/02/17 11:11 PM
9

So a commonly accepted literary device shouldn't be used on this subject matter because why exactly?
/r/MensRights19/02/17 11:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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