TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Mirisme Archive

View 0 posts and 130 comments by Mirisme 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

Who's enforcing that and why?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/02/23 12:02 AM
1

And from what are we going to be liberated?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/23 11:45 PM
0

It doesn't matter, reforming Feminism isn't my priority. I'm here for Men's issues. I do not think that's doable without addressing feminism as a competing ideology. I don't understand how you can believe it is but as you say, you do you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/23 01:02 PM
0

Patriarchy Theory is an ideological apparatus that's used to deny Men victimhood. What good can come from entertaining an ideology that categorically denies Men victimhood? Let's say, you approach a doctor with a dislocated shoulder, and you say that you're hurting and need attention. What if the doctor says "You don't have it that bad, do you know that there are patients that are ACTUALLY suffering, unlike you? Do you realise how hard they have it compared to you?" What would be your reaction? …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/02/23 10:42 AM
1

That's the crux of the issue! Is there a baby in that bathwater? I think it exists but it's hard to see because the water is scalding hot and you're like "does it make sense to risk being burned?". In that sense online discourse can be much more scalding hot water than baby. Theory is a mixed bag but you're going to get near some pretty intense heat. I can't guarantee that you'll find the same baby I think I found but I don't really see another path to go forward.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/23 01:29 AM
1

I'd say it's fair to blame feminism for failing to address its shortcoming but unfair to reduce it to those shortcomings. In short, don't throw the baby with the bathwater.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/02/23 12:40 AM
1

I know that people who profess a particular belief can do things contrary to that belief while claiming it is in the name of their belief, so I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to understand your position. I'm glad that you ask and I think you're asking a very good question. I also did not see your question as confrontational so we're good. Now to answer. Are you separating feminism as ideology from feminism as movement? And, by implication, separating the feminist from the ideolog…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 05:26 PM
1

Not anymore, not in any meaningful way beyond free choice. In the Western world at least. What are we even doing here? Are we saying that women are now absolutely free of doing whatever and men aren't because of feminism? I don't understand how you can claim that there's no meaningful difference between gender and advocate for males. And that means there is no basis for that resentment. Maybe you're right, good luck convincing anyone that they're feeling wrong though. I'm aware of what it means,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 04:52 PM
1

I don't understand why you would accuse my statements of not having scientific foundation. I don't really accuse you of that. I accuse you (well not really but I think you feel accused by me and I get why) of using an unexamined belief to make call to actions that could be ineffectual. I agree with you that we need to critically explore feminism, I disagree on the preconception that it's bound to result in wholesale rejection. The issue is that if you use that belief to call for wholesale reject…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 04:22 PM
0

What I meant to say is: who is in power isn't affected primarily by gender. We see both men and women in leadership positions. It is therefore wrong to resent men in general, as if they have the power. That requires selective blindness to the women in power, and to the men who aren't. Yes and who is in power is affected by gender, that distribution has been equalising. This means that there's a basis for that resentment because not all grievances need to be absolute to be relevant. I agree that …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 12:59 PM
-1

I have to say that I really don't like the way the word reactionary is used in general. I use it to point to the fact that this space could turn into an anti-egalitarian movement if there's not a proper egalitarian ideological framework. What do you dislike about that? To me it seems to be the correct response when a party/group that is better informed or even just plain smarter than you is actively and unjustly working against your interests. At least initially. No that's just resentment, not r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 12:36 PM
3

I'd say that the issue with the current ideological position in men's movement is either surrendering critical thought in face of feminist discourse as exemplified by menslib or wholesale rejection of feminist ideology as I think you try to point out with your point about intersectional feminism. For example, if we reject feminist theory, how are we replacing the concept of gender? The obvious pitfall here is to obliterate the social aspect of this condition and get back to a purely biological e…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 05:00 AM
1

Phrase it how you want. I did but as you found a strong objection with my phrasing, I tried to find a common ground. The stance of the majority of this sub is that the feminist analysis is wrong. The strong and powerful is primarily a matter of class, rather than gender. This is why the resentment against men is misdirected. To what extent is it wrong? I interpret what you're saying as "Gender dynamics aren't affected by power as long as there's no class involved.", if that's the case to what ex…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 04:09 AM
1

Well if that's the only thing that bothers you, I retract it. How do you prefer I phrase that point? I was thinking of "in our current setup the strong is actually the tiny fraction of human that are in the vast majority comprised of men (lets say 87% as it's the percentage of male billionaire worldwide) that run things" but I find that way of saying it accurate but cumbersome. Do you have any thought about that or about the content of my overall point?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/23 12:02 AM
1

I think it's fair to say that my hostility toward feminism is a direct result of things feminism has said about and toward men, males, and masculinity. Yes, I agree. My point is that the critical feature explaining this discourse isn't feminism but women's resentment coalescing into vitriolic discourse against men. This discourse being prevalent in feminism activates cognitive dissonance which does not happen with reactionary discourse because it's expected from reactionaries to have bad takes o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/23 07:17 PM
5

I view this dynamic as symbolic resentment. Left leaning people are prone to resentment as they tend to recognise a situation as "a strong person is acting upon me". Resentment makes one undermine the strong but in our current setup the strong is actually the tiny fraction of men that run things, these individual are mostly out of reach for any serious critique of their action. As they can be symbolised by masculinity, other men are the target of this resentment as a symbolic displacement. The i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/23 05:04 PM
3

The patriarchy is just Marx analysis of bourgeois/proletariat social organisation applied to men/women social organisation. Smash the patriarchy is a reference to a proletarian revolution under the call of "down with capitalism". You may apply your criticism of feminism to any critique of capitalism "a faceless system of oppression, power and control". Also why are you using locus of control in that context, I don't see how that's in any way related. Internal locus of control isn't particularly …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/23 09:28 PM
1

Yes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/01/23 08:51 PM
2

I'm well aware of what CBT entails. I'm disagreeing with the notion you push that psychology took a turn towards "we are going to make you feel like everything is okay" as a nonsensical claim that do not map to anything especially since "we are going voluntarily to confront what you fear" is much of what therapy is (and is even more now imo). On another note, the ideals of traditional masculinity or whatever ideal you endorse will always be in question in a therapy. It's literally the point of t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/23 04:35 AM
6

When modern psychology took a turn from “we are going voluntarily to confront what you fear” to “we are going to make you feel like everything is okay”, masculinity became the enemy by default. Masculinity is the issue by default of psychology as psychology is a tool that is used to correct behaviour in accordance to the system of laws that we have in modernity. As you may have noticed, men are much more prone to be coerced by the law system and subjected to its corrective impetus. I'm unsure wh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/23 11:31 PM
3

I have found something of a way past the ogre by opposing liberal feminism with a more anarchist reading of feminism. In my opinion, capitalism is necessarily inegalitarian, which means that any proposal of equality under capitalism as is liberal feminism endorse this necessity. This pigeonhole men into their traditionalist gender role but present that role as both an issue and a necessity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/01/23 08:47 PM
1

Most men that I interact with expect nothing from the world, and feel like they are in the background - invisible in the contexts of other people's lives. I'm not sure that's the point you're thinking it is. It's not a clear contradiction to a narcissistic thought pattern, it's highly compatible with such patterns. Typically a narcissistic individual will have trouble forming healthy intimate relationship, as such they're constantly feeling alienated from the world, especially the social world. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/22 05:31 PM
1

I still think self-absorbed has negative connotations that are unhelpful. It would appear so. I'd have liked the perspective of OP on that but I'll take your word on it. Now I find the situation doubly ironic as I was too self absorbed to recognise that this could be viewed as an insult. I also think justice requires accurate objective assessments of degrees of pain. I disagree but that's a pretty long explanation as to why. I'd say a just situation is a situation with a shared narrative that ev…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/22 12:51 AM
2

In my view, it's a small part of a much larger phenomenon. People that alienate themselves to a grand narrative tend to reduce people that fit in it to the part that the narrative tells them. It's dehumanising. Feminism has clearly a large part of the discourse that makes out men as bad and therefore non-human. My point was to say that I doubt he's interacting only with feminist women that deny his worth and he's missing the forest for the tree. But well the tree is indeed part of the issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/22 12:31 AM
0

In my view we're mostly self absorbed and empathy necessitates an effort that is difficult. I don't blame OP when I say he's self absorbed, he's suffering and it's understandable to be absorbed by your pain when you are in it. It is still ironic to say that others are. The point I was trying to make was that is problem isn't feminist women per se but the lack of recognition of his pain and that feminist women are one of the various modalities he wasn't recognized. I understand that this view isn…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 03:02 PM
1

Oh no, I just didn't understand what you wanted to do, I didn't find you rude but thanks anyway.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 02:47 PM
0

The ideologies, which were - like feminism - supposed to criticize the Grand Narratives have become Grand Narratives themselves. Yes, it also famously happened with Marxism. That's why I think anyone who is preoccupied with how dangerous claims about "universal truths" can be should rather be worried about how ideologies like feminism are absolutizing their ideological positions as THE TRUTHS, we should all believe in than about how individual people are absolutizing their individual experience …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 02:45 PM
-1

Or is it one of the 999.999.999 situations, which causes the removal of a comment and possibly also a ban on this sub of Free Censored Speech? Well I have been banned of AskFeminism for saying that pedophilic desire exist and that the problem with it wasn't its existence but the fact that it is main actualisation route is by going against the desire of a child and I've tried to induce some discussion on menslib about how relationship uncertainty is a root cause of the gendered setup we have and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 02:16 PM
-6

To be clear, you weren't engaging with me then? I'm unsure if you actually want to discuss with me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 01:44 PM
0

What do you consider mean? I find that I often comes across as such online, albeit I do not write in my native tongue so that may change things a bit. But if you mean what most people mean when they say it (I.e. according to the preponderance of scientific evidence), your claim is absurd. Scientific evidence do not inform your preference, it can only make a claim about facts. I would reluctantly agree that we can make claims about how much an issue is real or not (as long as we agree that this r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 01:42 PM
1

This doesn't mean, that there is no hierarchy of problems on the societal level. Who gets to determine that for everyone else? I'll pass on that opportunity and remain the sole arbiter of what I consider important. Otherwise, why is it important that I accept that hierarchy of problems and subscribe to the one OP have? I recognise his suffering without doing so, what would be the point of doing so?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 01:34 PM
-6

This is a political sub, as such I can't regard seriousness of an issue as "truth" in any capacity because truth kills political debate. I find that claims of truthness in political discourse is just a masquerade for one's political preference.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 01:30 PM
-16

There's no such thing as more objectively serious issue. There's however a grave issue that affects you and a lot of other people in the form of an orphan disease. In your perceived reality, it's obviously much more serious to talk about a life altering/threatening condition than the example you give of feminist discourse. It's however not immediately the case for the people not sharing your experience. As you point out, it's effectively unkind of them not to consider this condition. It seems to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/22 12:09 PM
2

You misspelled marital relationship as martial relationship on page 4. On another note, words of expert are routinely ignored in mainstream discourse. You cannot challenge a worldview in a way that would imply a threat to the person holding the particular view, it simply does not work. I think "man" is tied to "dangerous" in a lot of people mind and that is something harder to deconstruct than "woman" being tied to "weak". No one will care for someone deemed dangerous.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/22 07:30 PM
1

While yours is socially constructivist - for instance, an anarchist who shoots unpopular leader, primarily because they're indoctrinated by some strain of anarchist dogmatism. Well, no my take is social constructivist in the sense that I try to enact institutions that are compatible with anarchism, that's why I disagree with mainstream feminism a lot. I want my desires to be enacted, I don't care about which ideological lense I use in order to do so. It's just a matter of using the right tool, g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/22 12:48 PM
1

Sorry for the ambiguity, I was talking about this part: People are not explicitly taught that culture, they just grow up in it. Ditty with OG anarchism, it grew spontaneously as a zeitgeist, from people of very different walks of life. That's an environment of ideological incoherence out of sheer frustration, it wasn't constructed by any stretch. Don't forget that my critique comes from a structuralist point of view - from where I'm standing, the ("supernatural") necessity in anarchism is arisin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/22 11:41 AM
1

I'm not critiquing deconstruction, I'm critiquing false premises introduced into deconstruction by overzealous post-structuralist worldview (ad absurdum structuralist analysis of post-structualism to see what I mean: "falsifiability of an argument can't be trusted, lol, it's all just prejudice colored by your own bias lol"). Well if your point is that bad argument are bad argument then yes. We can say the same about essentialist that make structuralist type claim but are pretty shit when confron…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/09/22 10:45 AM
1

It maps in my critique of post-structuralism that it is refusing objective structures - there's no deduction, only subjectivity. Objective structures aren't logical structure, they are subjective claims about external objects whose knowability is debatable. You can fit whatever you want into a logical structure, it doesn't say anything about the quality of your inputs. One has to pay respect to whether any construct is structurally sound (ie employ structuralism) in the first place before one ca…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 10:55 PM
1

Anyway, feminism in practice is largely about imposing rules on the world, on interhuman behaviour. You say that as if it was specific to feminism. It's largely true for every political movement except for serious anarchist. I mean feminist do not have the various soviet like states in their track record, they seem much more acceptable than marxist-leninist if we're going the left-wing anti-authoritarian way.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 09:39 PM
2

What I'm talking about is the grave consequences when people elect post-structuralism as the only form of argument in lieu of self-evident structure. Post-structuralism doesn't necessarily means totalising social constructivism. I'd even argue that totalising social constructivism is structuralist and the logical incoherence you speak of is the mere fact that total social constructivism is absurd. On the other hand, the only self evident structure I agree with is that I experience which is the r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 09:31 PM
1

Or it could be argued that post-structuralist anarchism and radical feminism blended into one by the 80s. I was thinking of Emma Goldman but sure radical feminism (the non essentialist kind) and post-structuralist anarchists are difficult to distinguish now. It's all fun and games to bring Deleuze into it, until you start rejecting deductive reasoning because it could, technically, lead to wrong of use of axioms ("everything begins with God" and such). But if all you do is induction instead, you…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 11:48 AM
-1

It's a classic left wing move to disqualify a group that tries to fight back against a specific oppressive structure in the name of their fight against another oppressive structure. An example being feminist disqualifying men's right. A classic is, of course, marxist leninist and socialist engaging in class reductionism at any opportunity. You're doing it there, dismissing feminism as a left wing force based on the fact that it also participates in your oppression. This is peak left wing infight…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 10:26 AM
1

Anarcha-feminism exist though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 09:38 AM
1

There will always be gender roles due to biology and sexual dysmorphism Well yes. That's not the point that postmodernist feminist make. because generally there is always a gap between the norms, and the practice behind closed doors Which is also true for current events. The norm of "brutish man" is not what happens behind closed doors. Studying gender within the framework of economic classes for ex There's feminist theory around that, intersectional analysis comes to mind. I'm unsure how femini…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 08:52 PM
1

But as long as you agree that sexual liberation has formed new standards that remain gendered, it's traditionalism 101 bis. Except for postmodern feminist, like Butler, feminism have not fully questioned gender roles nor deconstructed them as it would entail renouncing the "man bad" gender role. To me feminism has mostly adopted postmodern jargon without accepting its implications. I didn't say that there were no norms around sexuality, what I meant was that in the absence of a public discourse …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 05:03 PM
0

I agree that the beautiful aspect of women's sexuality is a product of the sexual liberation and as is the brutish aspect of male sexuality. However the innocent aspect of women's sexuality far predates sexual liberation, figures like Mary or Jezebel are clear indicator of this "innocent vs lustful" opposition of feminine sexuality. The sexual liberation altered the gender discourse and has formed a new standard that is still gendered. Also the fact that sexuality is an intimate matter does not …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 02:32 PM
5

I'm sure a woman could make the same argument when they were totally disenfranchised in the 19th century. My point is that while it's true that they are marginalised, we can try to propose a coherent outlook that could help them (and men in general) gain their autonomy. My worry is that a lot of men interested in creating that discourse are either trying to toe the mainstream feminist party line or reject it completely. I honestly do not know how to think about the experience of maleness while r…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 03:11 PM
7

While I agree that there's no demand, I think it further marginalise them. Incels would be a bit like male hysterics, a group of people pathologised because of their gender. It's however possible to deal with that type of condition by bettering social conditions, which could be a demand from incels.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 02:57 PM
9

I've seen rhetoric akin to that, it is admittedly much less accepted now. You have to factor that workers are more integrated, incels seems to be almost fully alienated, they're a step away from homelessness and the attitude against homelessness is pretty harsh most of the time. And I don't know of any set of concrete demands that incels have and anyone without concrete demands is taken less seriously even if they have an actual issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 02:47 PM
10

Which is a pretty important reason why the idea that incels should be branded terrorists is absolutely absurd. It's not if you take into account the fact that it's mostly marginalised people that are incel. A hierarchical society needs a bottom class and incels are the bottom class of dating that has apparently developed class consciousness.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 02:00 PM
3

I would not conceptualise it like that but yes, it's a good approximation. I agree with a lot of feminist theory on account that it explains neatly some dynamics that are observable. I have yet to see a theoretical alternative to feminism that is satisfying. There are however theoretical approach that aren't integrated to feminism theory that would be interesting to integrate (evolutionary psychology comes to mind). On the other hand I readily reject all explanation in "toxicity" be it, masculin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 11:27 AM
2

Don't worry, I did not engage with you under the assumption that we were fighting. I understood that I had touched upon something sensitive for the community but I'm used to that, I tend to have radical takes and I'm not the best at challenging gracefully a position. I'm glad we had the discussion too. It has helped me formulating some ideas that I think are important. I'll need to think a bit before sharing them tho.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 10:05 AM
6

In fact, to feminists, it is the act of advocating for men itself that they see as misogynistic. So they'll never be happy with anyone advocating for men. I see that as a kind of siege mentality. It's particularly prevalent in the left as a lot of us are actually at siege with society in some ways. It leads to paranoid thinking that has no stopping point because the fear is endless. It's pretty obvious on Menslib with the trigger happy mods, it also exists here albeit in a more muted version IMH…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 09:37 AM
3

Well you assume that I'm of bad faith from the start. I'll assume the root of the issue is in my first comment. My first comment is indeed a straw man, it is what I perceived as the potential point being made. I did not understand the actual point of OP. Some discussions lead me to realize that the point of OP was in fact much more restricted that I would have hoped it'd be and that it has frustrated me. Now your post makes me realize that I have been disagreeable towards OP and others in my fru…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 09:13 AM
1

I think the freedom we experience is a needed illusion. Typically our morality is us thinly veiling our desires under rational argument. Practically, I act as if I'm absolutely free except when I analysis when I search how I am determined. It's the best compromise I found between all my beliefs.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/22 08:58 AM
15

In my view, it's pretty simple. I want to discuss about something. I try to do it in the spaces that seems dedicated to that. It happens that those discussions aren't really productive. I'll then try other spaces/create alternatives to satisfy my need for this type of discussion. This space specifically exists because Right Wing MRA spaces and feminists spaces aren't perceived as productive to those here. With that framework, I can respond to those that say "we don't need a men's rights movement…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 11:34 PM
1

That's why I very much prefer the term hegemonic masculinity. You can define the hegemonic masculinity as the masculinity of the top group of men in society (WASP men for the US I think) and all other masculinities are subservient to this one, so the more you go down the ladder, the worse off you are. You can also integrate women as presenting hegemonic femininity mirroring each type of masculinities to explain the power relation they actually adopt in society. The white women/black man example …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 11:11 PM
15

It's an interesting and necessary paper. Inceldom seem to be characterised by marginalisation and an attribution to an negative, essential characteristic of the self. Interestingly, inceldom deviate from other types of "surplus" male centric group like religious extremism or the military as it's entirely focused on self expression and bonding with like minded individual. There seems to be little actual drive towards any concrete goal which may explain the depressive nature of this group. In a le…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 10:56 PM
2

Which part? I'd be happy to explain my thoughts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 09:12 PM
2

It's not really my worldview, it's just a systemic analysis. You can disagree that we are products and producing a system, in that case I'd like to know how you propose to explain large societal tendencies. For a more theorical overview you can check out systems theory on Wikipedia.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 09:06 PM
2

Well I'm here because I don't agree with feminism reducing all men to rapists. You judge whatever you want, just because I do not agree with the practice does not represent a moral obligation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 09:00 PM
6

The etiology was bullshit, the phenomenon was very much real.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 08:08 PM
2

I don't care so much how they behave, as long as they can introspect on that behavior, and hold themselves selves accountable. The thoughts are much much more important than the practice for me. What someone says is a behaviour. I expect everyone that I love to treat me as an equal. I do not tolerate behaviour that hurt me and I hold people accountable for their behaviour. I think he'd support me against violent women, while spinning it as if it were a one off case, and then going on a tangent a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 06:24 PM
7

By hyper-acceptance i mean that we've gone to a philosophy of accepting everything without question, whether that is political or social or personal. I don't know where you've seen that but I feel we have much more radical disagreement in society today. There's no more common discourse under which we could evaluate the different claims but that's only due to the failures of the previously attempted discourses (the two big ones are god and science/progress). Authoritarianism comes in when you act…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 06:19 PM
4

To start and I apologise because it's a minor nitpick: I doubt he has any cognitive dissonance if he do not see the incoherence of his discourse. I feel you're mostly quibbling over who has it worse in current conditions. The theorical disagreement is mostly irrelevant, what matters most is if he considers what's bad for you as actually bad and vice versa. If you cannot trust him to accept what you feel as negative, then yeah, it's gonna be hard. If you want to check that, step down from the ver…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 05:54 PM
0

Expand on this one, please. Do you mean the author of the article sees themselves as a victim, and therefore always right? Basically slave morality is claiming one is morally justified by virtue of being weak in face of the strong, like the christ is morally justified because he's murdered. The whole concept of martyrdom works like that. It's opposed to master morality that claims that one is morally justified by the virtue of being strong, nobility works like that. It's a way of winning a fight…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 05:31 PM
-1

The very idea of women not being moral and incorruptible is anathema to some people. It's an issue with victim mentality or as Nietzsche called it, slave morality. It is essential to show that just as men can be victims of social issues, they can be victims of women as well. Doing that means we must show the darker side to women's actions at times, and the double standards that some people establish in womens favor. Sure, but don't this post preach to the choir? It feels like it's serving the do…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 04:51 PM
1

They're saying that if we have standards for people they should apply regardless of gender. Yeah, I gathered that from the discussion. It seems obvious to me, I thought there was some sort of critical lenses to go with it that I did not get. I guess my expectations were not in sync. The only morally bankrupt people are those who maintain double standards. I doubt that gender essentialist see that as a double standard, in their mind, it's fair.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 04:32 PM
-1

He is stating that cheating is a behavior and that he is judging behavior AS WELL. But he's also judging the person behind the behaviour he stated as much "people who do it should be judged harshly". I stated I would not do that. You can think it's bullshit, it does not change my stance. Acting like someone, who is fucking someone else when they are in a relationship, is actually the partner who DIDNT cheats fault. Simply because they didn't ask if their partner wasn't poly or some shit. Is quit…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 04:07 PM
7

I agree with your take on the left wing perspective but I fail to see how this post participate in that perspective. That's why I'm questioning it. I mean, the top post explicitly say that this post can induce reactionary thinking. I'd prefer if the post was accompanied with a critical lenses that helped reduce the risk of right-wing recuperation. There certainly exist self-proclaimed feminists who have no interest in recognising or helping with issues that negatively impact men, and are often o…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 04:01 PM
0

So you are saying that nobody created patriarchy, slavery, communism. Yes, a lot of people participated in those system but no one person nor group created. Is it just the word "create" that you object? Mostly, yes. Are you saying that nobody can change a system? No, it's possible to change a system but I'd not say that someone is the cause of changing a system. You can however disrupt the logic maintaining the system and hope it leads to a systemic change if there's another systemic disposition…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:39 PM
-2

Yes, what's your point? I was disagreeing with your statement that "people who do it should be judged harshly".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:23 PM
20

There's no denying that there is a general lack of morality and integrity across the west right now but it's because of decadence and hyper-acceptance ideologies. I doubt it's the cause. I'd say it's because we transitioned from a authoritarian society to a more cooperative one without actually developing institutions that help deal with that. For example, you point out hyper-acceptance ideologies, I'd say that it's the conflict between "accepting people for who they are" and the traditional ins…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:16 PM
-2

Cheating in a relationship is a terrible thing to do and people who do it should be judged harshly. Well you judge how you want. I don't really like judging people, I prefer to judge behaviour, so I won't join you in your desire to judge people. This article tries to excuse this reprehensible behavior when it’s done by women and that’s a problem It is indeed a problem. So this thread is a finger pointed in the direction of the issue? In that case, it's not really a great discussion starter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:09 PM
2

I agree but you see, I've seen gender essentialist are everywhere.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 03:03 PM
-1

No, I did not. At most I did imply that men aren't to blame for the patriarchy (if we subscribe to that idea), this does not mean that we do or do not live in one.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 02:58 PM
1

Surprisingly it is not an outright men bashing, but it is very different from the second article. On that, we agree. The cheaters are not glorified, they are called adulterers, cheating is clearly labeled as morally bad, the wives are not blamed. So in that case, I'd the hypocrisy would that cheating women aren't treated as moral subject as their choice are not framed as immoral. This is a point I'm can indeed see. Now I'm unsure what you want me to do with that point. It seems a bit trivial to …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 02:55 PM
1

I did infer that from the context, in fairness, so if you aren't familiar with the context, then it's probably not obvious. I'm familiar with the practice in reactionary subreddit so I'm wondering what was the left wing perspective of that double standard thing. So far nothing really caught my eye except for the quasi justification for being redpilled that is the current top comment. It relates to the misguided idea that gender equality, or a genderless society, can be achieved by only focusing …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 02:37 PM
-14

It's meaningless to talk about who creates a system. No one does. By virtue of existing, the system continuously try to maintain its existence. It's a bit like asking who creates you, you maintain yourself as a system because you exist as a system. You point out to the system and says "Look it exists". I mean, sure it does but I fail to see the use of that. Even more you point out to the effect of this system and says "Look the effect exists" like one would look at footprints in the sand. I just…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 01:41 PM
-23

Hmm yes, that is a point that could be made from that article. Even the article I linked is coherent with that framing. If that was his point, I did not understand it as such and I sure don't understand what he wants me to make of this point. However I'd say that double standard is a given in a gendered society. The brutish and predatory male sexuality is coherent with the overall discourse around men, mostly that a man must dominate. The innocent and beautiful sexuality of women is also coheren…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 01:21 PM
-1

Ok I tried searching for an article about cheating men on the same journal: https://nypost.com/2022/03/16/61-married-men-reveal-why-they-cheat-heart-pounding-sex/ It's not really bashing men. I'm sure you have a good reason to do that but I don't understand how that reason is the hypocrisy of the NYpost because I do not see it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 01:02 PM
-7

I don't know the person making this article, I've no idea if this is hypocritical. At most I find it's a discourse that is incoherent with other discourse that are aimed at men, I've not idea if this person actually use both. It seems to me that the piece do not bashes men for cheating, maybe I missed something tho.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 12:37 PM
-19

It is those who first bashed men as cheaters and now celebrate women's cheating that are morally bankrupt. Sure you can make that point, I'm just unsure how it relates to the article you're linking. With the things you've highlightned, it seems that you're disappointed those women aren't also bashed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 12:23 PM
-44

Are you trying to say that women are morally bankrupt? I'm trying do discern what you want to express but I'm unsure what to take from that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/08/22 11:59 AM
10

I think you're bothered because you think you might have the same essence that the guys catcalling. You can stop believing that there's a mystical thing inside you that connect you to the man catcalling. This thing you can do nothing about and you start to get anxiety from that fact, it's pretty normal as the impetus to adapt that is stress cannot be resolved. In that case, focus on your actual behaviour and stop using association with others as judgment upon you (and I mean fight back against a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/08/22 02:15 PM
1

It's not oversimplified. It's wrong and reinforces sexist stereotypes. Oversimplified concept tend to be wrong. They're wrong because they're oversimplified, not because the concept itself is. Then you failed to make that point. Well, I apologise for trying to literally answer the question I was asked. I'll make sure to rephrase the question to something that is relevant to my framing next time. And just because a few males are in positions of power, that doesn't say anything about men in genera…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/22 12:27 AM
1

That's why I said it fails to capture the processes that makes up the dynamic. I'm unsure what you're trying to argue here. That it's bad to use oversimplified language even when you warn that it's oversimplified? My point was to summarily point out to the fact that position of power tend to be occupied by males.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 11:55 PM
1

I have said it's reductive. Categories do not map well with a systemic approach. It's useful as a rough outline but it fails to capture the processes that makes up the dynamic. I tried answering the question as is, even if I thought it was missing the point of a systemic approach.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 11:38 PM
1

Gender dynamics definitely exist, and there is plenty of sexism in our society. But it's not a one-way street in which women suffer and men benefit. Sexism hurts both men and women. I'm not sure why you need to clarify that. I agree and I have not claimed anything incompatible with that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 11:16 PM
1

Why does this subreddit exist then? It's asinine to deny that gender dynamic exist and have material impact on everyone's lives. How do you explain the fact that family court are biased against men with class struggle? Women are the bourgeoisie?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 10:56 PM
1

It mostly depends on how you choose to categorise. To make things simple, the more male you are and the more rich you are, the more you benefit. It's however very reductive to qualify things like that, it feels like making slices out of a whole chicken, you only get a mess. No one is responsible for a system, it's absurd to think that someone can be inside a system and be responsible for it. As for your last question, those that do not suffer from the system tend to try to perpetuate it. So them…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 09:32 PM
1

A system where men and women are given specific roles that gives them legitimacy in the task under their purview. In that system, women are tied to care tasks and men to the rest. This leads to a disparity in power. This disparity has changed as women can enter domains other than care however men are mostly still excluded from care tasks, for example single parenthood.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 05:43 PM
-2

We don't like to admit that the world is chaotic and can't be reduced to a set of simplistic theories or talking points. Well you seem to have a theory that contains hypergamy and a biological tendency to care. I'm not sure how that differs from patriarchy theory, except that it seems gender essentialist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 03:05 PM
0

How would you describe the system of gender relations as? With the criteria you use, I doubt we can call it matriarcal. At best, it could be qualified as traditional without qualifying what that tradition entails.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/06/22 09:30 AM
2

I don't think it's fair to qualify such qualify denial of biology as social constructivism. The social constructivist position would be saying that "gender as a category is socially defined by a set of facts that are grouped together following a set of arbitrary principles". To me this type of reaction are more in line with dogmatic thought where critical understanding of an object is denied as it would destabilise one's sense of self. In such case, the person alienate itself to a specific under…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/06/22 04:25 PM
6

There's no way to accurately or sensibly address how abuse works within the framework of justice. It has been demonstrated by each subsequent way that the justice system dealt with that issue. The crux of the issue is that you can reduce abuse to "competing narrative of the same facts that are forced upon an person by another". Whatever narrative is accepted allows for a set of acts that are socially accepted. Abuse is the way one can capture that social power. There's two way out of abuse, reco…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/06/22 11:55 AM
1

Yeah, I agree with that. I think it goes back to the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy. It's the basic notion of marxism that goes on into all modern leftist discourse. As Nietzsche I analyse this tendency as a way to reintroduce traditional Christian martyr complex in another form as if it was an inescapable notion. Postmodernism challenge this notion of oppressor/oppressed by rejecting all binaries in direct lineage with Nietzsche proposal to go beyond good and evil with the infamous tool that is …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 12:51 PM
4

It's ironic because there's interesting philosophy wrote by women. I mean the average feminist discourse can't cope with Judith Butler theories. If you play your gender as a role in a theater then a lot of rhetoric around what the roles entails is meaningless as the question becomes "Well what would be a better script?". It's evidently easier to play something else if there's another role that you're allowed to play.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 11:19 AM
1

You have to recognise that beating up someone is easier to conceptualise than the perspective of another person. It's my current take on the situation "Authoritarianism is the result of cognitive economy."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 11:13 AM
0

Right, but you have to read and understand Foucault, AND THEN care if you're being honest or logically consistent, to know this. For sure. My point is that I don't like taking an inconsistent interpretation as that thought itself. Conflating the misreading of postmodernism as postmodernism is dangerous as it stifle our critical capacity. Besides, didn't he argue that prisoners were essential in reinforcing the surveilling urges of the custodians of their panopticons? From memory there was a pass…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 11:04 AM
3

People equate it with mainstream pomo thought because of Foucault, which is fair enough. It's the most ironic thing in the world. Foucault critically assessed dynamics of power and wokism use that critique as a technology of power. There no reflexivity in wokism about how they use the oppression narrative as a technology of power and pushes for surveillance and punishment as much as the next reactionary. So I'd not describe the equating wokism to postmodernism as fair, since to me it's an invers…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 10:24 AM
2

It's part of the same woke post-modernist narrative of power and oppression It's not really post-modernist though. Power and oppression is a reinjection of the traditional martyr complex of christiannity into the postmodern condition. Postmodernism as an ideology is pretty fragmented but it's core position is rejecting meta-narratives, exactly like the power/oppression narrative. The fact that wokism is a dogmatic ideology that take some concept from post-modernism does not make it post-modernis…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/22 09:48 AM
2

As far as things go your analysis is fairly accurateAnd yes, I would describe myself as being jaded when it comes to discussing anything with feminists.Not getting to heavily into it but from the ages of 5 - 18 I was abused (Physically, Emotionally and Psychologically) by a number of women. Especially women who were in positions that gave them power over me. I'm not surprised at that. There's a tendency in feminist space to discount experience if they're not framed in the correct vocabulary, it'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 11:46 PM
1

I suppose a way to achieve equal standing is for the general public to have a much more positive view of MRAs and to be much more critical of feminism, but that will take a long time if that ever happens. Yes, that would surely be the goal, I see no clear path to that goal tho. When it comes to feminists, debating and discussing are a distinction without a difference. I understand why you'd think that. I have found a difference albeit difficult to discern and it has mostly been with feminist tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 11:12 PM
1

What would constitute equal ground and power to you? And how do you wish to achieve that? Also, I'm not planning to debate anyone, I'm planning to discuss.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 09:23 PM
1

I'm not expecting much, especially online, it tends to reinforce the cultural bad habits of discussion. My goal is more to experiment with different discussions parameters to see how I can allow for a discussion to happen than focusing on the content I want to discuss first. I have observed that there's so much assumption of bad faith that it becomes practically impossible to discuss without addressing that first. The issue is that while I'm open to compromise, I don't want to compromise my pers…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 10:27 AM
6

If I agree with you that it's impossible to discuss with feminist, what would you propose I do in place of trying to engage in discussions with feminists? That's my main concern. I had discussion with people were I reached a mutual understanding, even feminist. I have, of course, plenty of discussions that did not reach such mutual understanding but I have yet to see another course of action that I find agreeable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 09:45 AM
2

I once believe that MRAs and feminists could have a common understanding, but unfortunately I was incorrect in that assumption. You seem to assume that it's a fixed truth of the universe. I get that people can be very opposed to discussion but some are open to it and that can change the average discourse. Feminism is a good example of such actions but you could say that capitalism had such an effect against the discourse of aristocracy. Do you think it's an universal truth or do you wish not to …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 09:41 AM
2

If you believe that discussion is impossible, how do you envision we should act? I do believe that discussion is possible so I'll try but I'm curious about how you'll proceed from that point on. I worry that you might be trapped in a self defeating process. You proposed to just watch and said that discourse is impossible, your view is assured to be unheard with those expectations. Not that there's any guarantee that your view will be heard if you discuss it tho, it might be instantly shutdown as…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 08:49 AM
5

Wouldn't that damage control be an opportunity to get what we want tho? Feminist might be forced to open up their discourse to at least pay lip service to leftist men's discourse and that might be an opportunity to find common ground against reactionaries and traditionalists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 08:38 AM
22

You're right. There might be an issue of loneliness that might warp a person's sensitivity to danger in those case too. That's an harder issue to tackle as it'd require to teach communication skills that are not widespread.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 08:27 AM
8

Just watch. Do you think there's another option than watching things unfold? My view is that I try to have discussions that further an actionable discourse so I find watching other people narratives isn't that useful as long as they accept to write one with me that we find acceptable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/22 08:20 AM
1

Should I be afraid of using feminist concept because it would constitute wrongthink and you'd think I'm in bad faith? If you prefer another wording of the critique I have of the article you linked: I do not recognize what the article discuss as the concept of hegemonic masculinity as I understand it, therefore its critique fall flat in my view.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 06:54 PM
0

There are a lot of people rejecting the hegemonic interpretation as well. There's a lot of people rejecting science. It's not a valid critique. I also see people (liberals) using it in an unscientific way. It happens with every scientific concept. I see no end to the bastardization and misunderstanding of the concept of cognitive dissonance, that doesn't mean it's not valid. Which is basically toxic masculinity but under a different name. Actually it's the opposite. Toxic masculinity is a bastar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 05:48 PM
1

I'd say that the importance of either parameter is unknown except in specific aspect as gender identity that has evidence pointing towards a biological basis and gender expression that has a strong social component. Anything else is likely underconceptualized and pretty obscure, any statements regarding gender outside the aforementioned concepts are mostly speculations and unsubstantiated hypotheses. I fully agree with you on toxic masculinity as being a harmful concept. I prefer the use of hege…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 03:52 PM
6

Gender categories are just that. It's a meaningless rhetoric that only serves to distract from the issue at hand. If you want to disarm it, you can admit to it and say that you still want help to address men disadvantages. Otherwise you can re-frame the issue by saying that "I do not care about the origin of the issue, I care about resolving it.". What would you gain by proving that it's not true? That women historically participated in making men disadvantaged. Apart from some self righteousnes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 03:11 PM
1

But at one point we thought personality was entirely based on socialization, and basically everything we've learned since then has pushed the scale further to the side of biology. At what point? I do not remember ever hearing that. Maybe you could construe some behaviorist theory to say that. They were mostly saying that it was impossible to measure the black box and were ignoring dispositional factors as they were deemed non-measurable. We know that personality has a similar genetic link based …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 02:21 PM
1

Again it's axiomatic that all of these things are in play. Yes, my point is that these things are in play but you just say "actually it's all biology and by biology I mean biochemistry and genetics". For example, you completely ignore the effect of evolutionary pressure on culture that could very well explain the consistency of gender norm in place of biochemistry and genetics. Therefore characterising the situation as "it points to a strong biological component" as you conceptualise it, is redu…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 12:27 PM
2

It might look different on the surface, because of culture, but it follows deeper patterns that are likely linked to biology. Why do you think this type of link is substantiated? And what type of biological link do you think of? I agree with you that there's a recurring pattern, ie there's a correlation. But I don't think that a biological explanation, especially if we consider biology as "biochemical explanation". My take would be an interplay between biochemical (some behavioural tendencies, a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 10:22 AM
1

My point was that saying that gender is strongly biological is not in line with current scientific evidence. Saying that gender identity is biological is more in line with current scientific evidence. I'm not sure I understand the point you try to make with the evidence you present. So to answer to your points: while some gender norms may be consistent across cultures, it is mostly personality traits that are consistent. It's trivial to demonstrate that other gendered normative content vary wild…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/22 01:35 AM
4

If gender isn't real then being trans doesn't mean anything. Ironically a lot of research into transgender people reinforce the idea that gender is strongly biological. My understanding of the current working theory on gender is that: Gender identity is most likely biological. Gender expression is socially constructed. This is in line with the vocabulary used in the study you link. Furthermore, saying gender is a social construct doesn't mean that gender isn't real. However the claim that gender…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/05/22 11:50 PM
3

You have to assess what you're actually doing. If you want to share your perspective, you have to always remember that others have to accept it. It's not self evident that you'll be listened. If you correctly assess that the other person is being self righteous and that they're not keen on listening to you, being angry only serves to make them submit to you. As we are on a left wing space, I'll wager that you do not want that. In that case, cutting your losses and moving on may be the best move.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/22 09:43 PM
2

The other thing is that our society doesn’t encourage producing violence and there’s also more to toxic masculinity. Our society relies heavily on violence production in a lot of area to function. Just look at the justice system, it's mainly interested in producing violence on those that are deemed "unlawful". The state claim to fame is the monopoly on legitimate violence, not the monopoly of enabling peace. The army is an institution solely designed to produce unfathomable amount of violence, i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/22 02:13 AM
4

As we're in a leftist sub, I'd like to propose a useful critique of toxic masculinity. My main point of contention with the word is that it's needlessly ambiguous and more importantly it masks the actually important notion of hegemonic masculinity. Toxic masculinity can only be understood in the hegemonic masculinity framework lest it becomes nonsensical. Hegemonic masculinity is "masculinity of the dominant class". Now if we're talking equality, there's a lot of idea sold as masculine that are …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/22 01:56 AM
4

They hints to the fact that as you're adopting an identity, you become upset by "non-you". Clinging to that identity becomes an exercise in self abuse as you desperately try to keep the mask and become upset at stuff. While emotional suppression isn't the answer over-identification isn't. All mask are to be worn and shedded as useful. The question then becomes, what mask are you wearing that makes you suffer? What is the use of this mask? Is it useful in other context? If you stop clinging to th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/02/22 03:05 PM
5

I'll try to explain my understanding of the topics you mentioned that I'm a bit aware of. Kant is the starting point of this whole discourse. His idea of critique is "discovering the process by which something becomes". So when the guy says "critique of pure reason" it means "under which conditions pure reason is possible". My understanding of his argument is as follow "you have knowledge in the mind that is absolute and you have a perception of reality that is bounded". The main issue he raise …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/02/22 03:07 AM
1

My point is that manliness is tied to exploitation be it as an exploited or an exploiter. Maybe you can not be tied to an exploitative relationship and be manly but that would be just for aesthetics (and I'm unsure you can be fully aesthetic without practical implication). In that case the manliness has no practical function. To be clear, I do believe that it's the same for femininity. Granted there might be a "minimal" manliness or femininity that would revolve around reproduction but that woul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/22 08:50 PM
3

Because an attitude you hold can enable other people to exploit you. It serves both as a defense mechanism "life is hard but I'm tough" and a justification for not rocking the boat "I'm superior to that aristocratic buffoon" "I'm a tough guy that means business and can deal with things alone" (this line of thinking being isolating, practically disable you from pursuing social relationship/skills that would enable you to dislodge the ruler). If you envision a traditional, aristocratic society, th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/22 07:53 PM
1

When I write about manliness as a coping mechanisms, I refer to that defensive role. However, I do not understand how the fact that the effete aristocrat is a old stereotype interfere with manliness as exploitation enablement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/22 07:27 PM
6

If the only requirement is time, then yes it is possible. Also you have to carefully consider if manliness is an advantage or a propaganda tool to render exploitation acceptable to the exploited. In this regard, being less exposed to exploitation or being higher on the ladder of exploitation can indeed allow for surrendering such belief. As the other poster pointed out, you can view this type of phenomenon as "luxury belief" or view traditional manliness as "exploitative belief". This type of rh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/22 01:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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