TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MimeGod Archive

View 0 posts and 56 comments by MimeGod 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)
-9

The Trump campaign is a disaster for the men of this country. He's got everyone thinking that all men are horrible people like he is. I know "not all men" is a bit cliche, but I'd say that the vast majority of us are moral, ethical people that would never condone the kind of disgusting behavior that he's promoting. Until he and his kind disappear, things are only going to get worse for us. (Note: I'm not saying anything about politics here, this is purely about the kind of person he is)
/r/MensRights13/10/16 03:33 PM
1

There's plenty of jokes in the movie, and some of them could even have been funny if they hadn't immediately explained it.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 01:47 PM
0

I've mostly heard it used as a male version of "slut." A guy who sleeps around a lot. And not because he's "smooth" or a "player." He's just an easy lay for any girl who knows him. Nobody ever thinks a "fuckboy" has anything else to offer. "Bimbo" may be the best analogue.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 08:30 PM
1

Dude. Part of enlisting is basically swearing an oath of fealty. Not much can be done about that.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 09:04 PM
12

Loyalty needs to work both ways, otherwise, it's fealty. A company that provides real job security and actively fights on behalf of their employees instead of just treating them as an easily renewable "resource" can earn my loyalty. Costco is a good example of this. They treat their employees well, and have the lowest turnover in the industry.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 05:26 PM
6

This might not be a popular opinion, but if she really hallucinated the whole thing, there's no mens rea, and it isn't a crime. Simply put, there's no intent. She really needs to get off those drugs and the alcohol though.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:41 PM
3

It's more a case of the prosecutor screwing up. He tried for a couple of charges with strict legal definitions that didn't apply to the case instead of the broader "sexual battery."
/r/MensRights29/04/16 02:39 PM
1

That's good. I'm not a big fan of the whole "lawyer up and press charges" either, but there are situations where the legal system can royally fuck you over. That's kind of why I went with the restraining order suggestion; it is relatively easy to get and leaves a paper trail with your side of the story without necessarily causing escalation or permanent damage.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 04:25 PM
2

If the police come and process you, your face will be evidence of her defending herself against you. It sucks, but the police will almost certainly side with her. Your only chance is to get your side out there first. Even if you don't want to press charges, get a restraining order asap. If she gets to set the narrative first, there is basically zero chance they will believe anything you say. If she presses charges, you will go to jail. Heck, some states have laws that will force them to lock you…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 04:09 PM
3

While kind of fucked up, she does have a point (she was basically a "wife for hire" according to the article). Now, I'm unsure of the law in the U.K., but in the U.S., any contract with a value of more than $5k has to be in writing, so her verbal contract argument will fail. Since her side apparently also involved bookkeeping and managing two boutiques for him, she may very well win on the "unpaid wages" argument. They've also been living together for ten years, so there may also be a solid argu…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 12:55 PM
6

At the last place I worked, that was acceptable for women, but not for men.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 12:54 PM
29

Considering the wages McDonald's pays, this is actually helping contribute to that statistic.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 08:26 PM
7

Nice strawman there. There's obviously a huge gap between having a few rules to protect yourself and obsessing over all of someone's movements. It's amazing you don't know this. I also don't lend money that I can't afford to lose, no matter how much I trust the person. Every day people are betrayed by those they trusted 100%. Taking precautions against the things that can potentially affect the entire course of the rest of your life is just common sense.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:58 AM
11

I've been screwed over in the past by people I've trusted. By nature, I'm a very trusting person. That's why I would absolutely get a paternity test performed. I need to protect myself from my own trusting nature. Basically, over the years I've built up some rules that I live by. This helps protect me from potential bad decisions brought on by emotional responses.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:46 AM
6

There's a big gap between suspicion of cheating and covering your ass. Marriages can go a number of ways, and absolute certainty of fatherhood can give some peace of mind if things do go badly. On a much simpler scale, I don't suspect waiters at restaurants of trying to scam me, but I always check over the bill anyways. Besides, people in love don't always think rationally. I believe that people should have a few rules to live by to protect themselves during those times when they can't think cle…
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:37 AM
2

This refers to how influential they are, for better or worse. Regardless, I can't see how she in any way belongs on the list. There are literally hundreds of better choices.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 07:56 PM
3

Then you've missed some great stories. He's pretty damn warped. http://arousinggrammar.com/2013/12/01/jokers-no-mans-land-gordon/
/r/MensRights19/03/15 12:20 AM
13

College is around 60/40 favoring women now. 80% is an exaggeration. Though, the current trend is that the gap is still widening.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:20 PM
24

You're missing a couple of things here. Congress and CEOs are mostly "old." They're basically from the '50s - '70s. It's primarily mostly male because of demographics and generational lag at this point. That will change. (Realistically, it already has, we just need to wait.). And while your grandmother may have had issues going to college, we live in the present, where nearly 60% of college students are female. Women receive preferential treatment in nearly every aspect of college now.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:01 PM
1

Econ -6. Soc -5.28 More liberal than I usually get (probably due to the lack of a "neutral" answer on many questions). Pretty typical for social though. Looking through the other results, the claim that MRA is a right wing extremist movement seems to be inaccurate. There's a very wide range in here so far. I'm looking forward to the results (hopefully with standard deviation included).
/r/MensRights05/03/15 04:26 AM
1

The whole idea is that there isn't simply one reason or motive.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:19 PM
6

This means that if your SO is cheating, every time you've had sex since it started was rape, since they claimed it was an exclusive relationship. Heck, if they're cheating with you and you didn't know, that's also rape.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 04:02 PM
2

When feminist groups actively try to destroy Men's Rights groups, get colleges to implement ridiculous rules to target men, and constantly spread misinformation that hurts men, it's going to create animosity. Also, redpill type comments here tend to be harshly downvoted. The majority of the people here are not misogynists, but would like true legal and social gender equality. As an addendum, I just looked at the current top 10 posts here on my feed. 2 are about feminism. 2 about domestic violenc…
/r/MensRights08/12/14 10:50 AM
31

If there weren't people actually talking like that, it would make it easier to recognize as sarcasm.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:21 AM
2

No, a lack of something is not, in itself, evidence. However as a purely logical exercise, it would cause me to put the odds somewhat more in his favor.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 04:51 AM
5

While I don't pretend to know what happened, if the allegations are false, this is an excellent strategic move on their part. It's too late for a criminal trial that would put the burden of proof on them. To win a defamation lawsuit, he would have to prove that the allegations are false, a near-impossibility at this point. A civil suit could go either way, and would have very serious consequences for the loser. So his only option to make this go away is a payout. They may go for a civil suit if …
/r/MensRights25/11/14 08:26 PM
43

As a bonus, the alleged rape happened 2 years ago, so it's very possible that most or even all of the people involved aren't even students anymore.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 01:40 PM
155

It is illegal to attack people you know. It's also illegal to attack people you don't know.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 04:57 PM
4

From what I've seen, the vast majority of censorship in the U.S. comes from the right, especially from the religious right. They seem obsessed with restricting access to information, and have even publicly come out against critical thinking skills.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 10:09 PM
4

I really hope she doesn't run. I'm sure that the current Republican party will manage to find someone far worse, but I'd really like to vote for somebody halfway decent for a change.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 09:13 PM
8

Divorce and child support are major issues to mra. So there's a good chance that people here have relevant experience or information.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 02:40 PM
3

This is very similar to a bill that has failed twice before, with protection for income over $150,000 added in. There is no way this can possibly pass.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 03:47 AM
6

Mitchell's previous convictions include 38 for assault of various kinds, two for injuring with intent to injure, and nine of wilful damage, as well as threatening to kill. I don't generally agree with 3 strikes laws, but she's up to 50. At some point, people like this should be locked away for life for the protection of others.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 02:51 PM
12

They would have the same rights as a mother that gave up the child for adoption at birth, which is basically none.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 01:32 PM
8

I agreed worth most of the article up until that line. Women can be truly equal, but most don't really want to be. Most would much rather take the easier, safer, lower responsibility jobs while complaining about lower average pay. They don't recognize that fighting for unequal standards in professions like firefighting is actually proclaiming that they are not equal.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 03:26 PM
2

You're implying that Zimmerman broke his own nose and slammed the back of his head repeatedly into the ground himself? Forensics clearly shows that Zimmerman was being beat to hell and Martin wasn't struck once.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:19 PM
6

The only injury to Trayvon was the gunshot. (And bruised knuckles from doing a lot of punching) The fact that Zimmerman did not strike Trayvon at all indicates that not only did Zimmerman not start the fight, but that he almost had to have been ambushed.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:15 PM
5

The gunshot wound was the only injury of any kind on Trayvon. (Aside from bruised knuckles from doing a lot of punching) Zimmerman did not hit him at all, so it's basically impossible that Zimmerman started the fight. The complete lack of these defensive wounds indicates a very successful ambush by Trayvon. Meanwhile, Zimmerman had a broken nose, and the back of his skull was damaged from being repeatedly slammed into the ground. The prosecution did not deny any of this, it was accepted on all s…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:13 PM
15

Honestly, I'd directly avoid hiring someone with such a degree. I'd be worried that they will be actively looking for a reason to sue, and would be less able to work effectively in a mixed environment.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:30 PM
88

True. Leaving no witnesses makes someone far less likely to get caught. At that point, killing the rape victim afterwards is just common sense.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:22 PM
11

CNN and MSNBC are slanted, but not nearly as much as Fox. FTFY
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:17 PM
51

I heard it as, "the pigeon will kick over the game, shit on the table, and strut around like it just won." ...which is a disturbingly apt metaphor for this situation...
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:05 PM
22

Interestingly, this will make it harder for women to form workplace connections, and can lead to slower raises and promotions. Networking at work is vital for advancement.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:15 PM
4

Whether spousal rights should exist is a separate issue. The fact is they do, and we cannot grant spousal rights without defining marriage. Personally, I like spousal privilege rights, as well as the ability to share benefits, pensions, and health care. There's also the issue where immediate family is concerned, (such as some hospital visits) marriage makes someone qualify. It can also help protect someone from their parents in certain cases, as the spouse has stronger legal standing. (Like orga…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:43 PM
2

My reply was apparently mistargeted; it should have been to the comment that marriage is a religious institution.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:37 PM
4

The problem here is the definition of consent and rape, not marriage.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:34 PM
1

Neither this case, nor his comment, has anything to do with the definition of marriage.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:09 PM
12

Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry? Marriage is a bond between people; if a government is going to grant any legal spousal rights at all, it must first define marriage.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:07 PM
6

It could be 12 years at $1000/month.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:31 PM
5

So your argument is that increasingly bitter partisanship will lead to compromise? Decades of that hasn't worked very well in Congress.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:56 PM
1

We found the breaking point.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:46 PM
7

Very yes, especially for a job interview. Always thank the interviewer for his time and consideration.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:45 PM
6

He might be someone new to men's rights. who like much of society, doesn't understand that men can be raped by women. I don't think he was being intentionally rude, just trying to come to an understanding of something that many in this subreddit have already learned about.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:59 PM
-2

It may be personal experience affecting my view, but most of the atheists I've known irl are more solidly in the first category.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:24 PM
-16

In my mind, claiming that there is no higher power takes as much faith as claiming that there is one. There is no proof either way. That's why I've personally considered atheism a religion. Edit: Simply, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 07:47 PM
12

"Afterwards she rang paramedics telling them, "I kill my ex-boyfriend, he's a crook"" That statement is so vague it could mean anything!
/r/MensRights29/08/12 07:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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